Why Alas Needs Radical Feminist Woman Only Threads
| December 28th, 2005A while back, after I’d participated in some fairly intense threads here at Alas defending woman-only space in general, and woman-only internet boards (mine, in particular), Amp asked me if I’d like to start blogging regularly on Alas. I’ve been thinking about his invitation for some time now, and a couple of times I’ve written something, even threatened Amp that I was about to begin. Each time, though, I’ve ultimately decided not to, for the same reasons I haven’t posted at Alas for a long, long, time. There are just so many anti-feminist posters here. There are way too many men here, and too many of them seem to be here for the express purpose of making feminist discussion unlikely to impossible. It seemed too likely to me that attempting serious feminist discussion here would be like trying to have a conversation in a bar while the band was playing, just too frustrating.
A couple of days ago, Ginmar posted to my boards, alerting me to the treatment she was receiving here and to the fact that she had finally left Alas. I read her
I first encountered Amp on the old Ms boards, where there were the same ongoing problems with trolls, men’s rights activists, anti-feminists, libertarians, conservatives. Eventually, frustrated with how difficult it was to simply engage feminist women over issues of importance to us, I began what became a series of over 50 woman-only threads expressly for radical feminist women. Lots of people on the Ms boards, including feminist women, objected to those threads at first, but over time, their value became apparent even to those who at first opposed them. In the woman-only, radical feminist women’s space threads, women were at last able to enjoy serious discussions of feminist issues with far fewer of the intrusions and obfuscations typical of those who were on the Ms boards with one purpose and goal in mind: to silence and erase the voices of feminists, and especially feminist radicals, militants and separatists.
I think it’s great that Amp has revised the moderation policies here to make separate threads for men’s rights people and anti-feminists. I think that is definitely a step in the right direction. I would like to propose the creation of woman-only, radical feminist threads here as well, of the type some of us enjoyed back in the old Ms boards days, of the type we enjoy every day on my own boards. It seems to me that if space can be made for anti-feminists and fathers’ rights trolls here, it might make sense to make similar space for those of us who are radical feminists, separatists, and militants. I think it’s a shame that our presence on these boards is all but gone. Feminist women who share our politics and beliefs and history created a revolution in our time on behalf of the people of women, first and foremost, but ultimately benefitting all people — men, women, and children, and creatures and the earth as well. It seems to me that space should be made here for the kinds of discussions and discourses which have changed and are changing the world.
Woman-only, radical feminist space here won’t prevent anyone from discussing the issues we raise (in other threads which they create). What it will ensure is that our voices are not silenced and erased completely. And it might work to minimize the provocations which inexorably lead to flame wars and targeting and the uncivil posting styles which are often criticized here. So whaddya say, Amp? I’m pretty sure this isn’t what you anticipated I might post as a first post to your blog! It’s just that I haven’t been up for dealing with men’s rights guys and anti-feminists and trolls. I’ve done that to death and can’t give it my energy anymore. But I’d sure be up for creating a new space here for those who share my own separatist, radical, and militant feminist politics. I’d enjoy engaging the issues raised in the radical feminist threads outside of those threads here as well. And for what it’s worth, I’m betting the discussion which ensues now will be interesting.
Heart (Cheryl)
http://www.womensspace.org ( The Margins)
December 28th, 2005 at 11:16 am
I think before any radical feminists post here Ampersand needs to apologise to Ginmar for the way he has treated her.
In fact, by posting here women are giving Ampersand endorsement that he doesn’t deserve. He hasn’t displayed any interest in standing up for women when it really matters, what he has done is ban women or dismiss their feminist criticisms of his actions.
Why aren’t feminist women standing up for Ginmar? Why didn’t more women leave here in disgust when Paige and Funnie were banned?
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Hey Little Violet. My post today is me, standing up for Ginmar. And against the bannings of radical feminist women including Paige and funnie. I think we deserve a spot here, certainly if mens’ rights activists and antifeminists, do.
Heart
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 11:44 am
Goodbye, Amp et al. I don’t think I’ll be back.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 11:46 am
I realise that’s what you are doing Heart (BTW I’m Quine from the Ms Boards just so you know who you’re talking to) but I guess I’d say leave them to it. What’s so great about this space anyway? Ampersand treats feminists and anti-feminists as if our positions had moral equivalence. Why do radical feminists have to request space from a man in the first place? I can’t honestly imagine having real feminist discourse in a place run by and for a man, especially a man who has behaved in such a sexist manner towards women previously e.g. telling stories about how Ginmar had had more complaints made about her here than anyone else, or allowing sexists to tell lies about her positions.
This blog isn’t like the Ms Boards. The Ms Boards were a feminist institution, this place most certainly isn’t. Leave it to the MRAs.
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Heart,
Excellent post. At first I read it wrong and was thinking - oh shit, by those standards I couldn’t even post to Alas, but then realised you were speaking about threads that were limited to radical feminists only. I certainly think I’d benefit from reading such threads (though I consider myself more of a socialist feminist so would likely be hesitant to participate). I’ve been following the threads from Michigan (visiting family) so haven’t had much of a chance to discuss any of what is going on with Amp, so am a bit out of the loop. I do, however, agree that many of us - myself included - appreciate and value the voice that Ginmar brings to Alas. I don’t always agree with her, but none the less, I absolutely value her contributions as from the heart, meaningful and definitively feminist. She’s certainly not trolling and her reasons for being here have been a clear attempt to fight the good fight as it were.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
Threads closed to all but a certain set of people seem like a reasonable approach to me.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Hey, littleviolet/Quine, good to read you, it’s been a while. I don’t think I’m requesting anything from a man — more like making a demand. I think that everything we get, as women under male supremacy, we have to take somehow, wrest out of the control of men, including our space in the blogosphere, on the internet. As I posted, I haven’t joined in discussions here for quite some time. I also haven’t blogged here until today, although Amp invited me months and months and months ago. But in view of the creation of separate space for misogynists and anti-feminists, I am seizing the day, proposing space for radical feminist women only which we control. For better or for worth, as irritating and aggravating as it is to some of us us, it is a male run feminist blog, Alas, which gets read by a whole lot of people. And it is missing our voices, pretty much.
Kim, thanks for the good words.
Heart
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
I’m a member of the opposition, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to restrict certain threads to radical feminist posters. Ideally it would be preferable to discriminate based on content rather than on the beliefs of the posters, but I realize that that may be impractical.
That said, I don’t see why they should be restricted to female posters, and frankly the suggestion seems to me to confirm some negative stereotypes about certain types of radical feminists. For example, I don’t see why a man like Ampersand, who at times strikes me as trying too hard to be sympathetic to women and women’s issues (like when he said that he had seriously considered exempting female feminists from moderation), should be barred from participating based solely on his sex.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
I’m all for it. I can see no valid reasons not to have Woman (or Radical Feminist Woman) only threads. My interactions with the more passionate and knowledgeable feminists who have commented at Alas have allowed me to learn things that I don’t think I would have learned otherwise. I see your proposal as an opportunity for me to learn more stuff w/o having to wade through the trolls and same old, same old.
That said, I would find it helpful to have associated threads open for all for both questions (should anybody wish to answer) and commentary (as it would be interesting for me to see what others take from the restricted threads).
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
And there I go messing up my tags. Sorry ’bout that.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
I only recently discovered Alas, and it has quickly become one of my favourite blogs. I read it daily, and have been slowly going though the older posts and reading up on a variety of issues. I have only posted comments a few times, because I like to lurk for a while and get a feel for a board or blog so I don’t make an ass of myself. As a lifelong feminist, I think it’s kinda funny that the post that makes me delurk is one that is supposed to be offerring some kind of solution to the silencing of feminists voices on this blog. I am by no means a radical feminist, but I’m certainly no liberal either, and I would probably be called a radical by those who are unaware that it refers to a very specific kind of feminism.
This comment was written by dorktastic.I hate the idea of women-only, radical feminist threads here. I have read other boards that Heart posts on, and I think she is transphobic and a bully. I’m guessing that women-only in the context of Heart’s version of radical feminism is going to be limited to “womyn-born-womyn,” i.e, it will explicitly exclude trans women. I am a non-trans women, but since I do not support their exclusion, am I to be categorized as a misogynist or an anti-feminist? Am I unwelcome? Is this really how the lines are being drawn here?
Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Cheryl, even though I vehemently disagree with the idea of banning the anti-feminists (although many trolls can take a hike) or men’s rights activists and creating radical feminist only space or threads on this blog, I think you make some excellent points about the silencing of women.
However, I would like to add another perspective. I consider myself a multiracial feminist, and much of my feminist activism and ideology is shaped by my anti-racist activism. Although most of my academic work is racism, I see racism a one of many forms of domination and oppression, which of course means that I see the feminist big four race/ethnicity, class, gender, and sexuality as fundamentally shaping the social structure (and certainly we could add more religion, age, disability, and so on). What makes radical feminism great is its persistent and unrelenting focus on challenging patriarchy and in particular issues such as violence against women and the silencing of women, but one of the great weaknesses of radical feminism is (which to a degree is also its strength) that it places sexism above all other oppressions.
In many ways, radical feminism suffers from the same problems Black nationalism. Black nationalism is great at critiquing white racism and promoting empowerment and self help for Black men, and this is often done in an all Black environment. The Nation of Islam does not allow Whites in their mosques, for many of the same reasons you don’t want men to participate in radfem threads or boards–whites simply have voices and spaces everywhere.
What both of these perspectives ignore is the extent to which all radfem women’s groups or all black nationalist groups themselves still end up silencing some of the members of the group because of what Patricia Hill Collins calls the matrix of domination. Radical feminist can be racist, heterosexist, and classist, which can silence some women. When the overwhelming focus of the discussion is on issues that are of primary interest for middle class White women, this is what will happen. The radical White feminist often end up running the discussion (just like the Black nationalist men, who use patriarchy to their advantage) and the problem of silencing is replicated in a different way. Rather than men silencing us; we women silence each other.
I am always leery of the notion of separatism even though I find some uses for it. It does allow us to push the boundaries and come up with ideas that may be unpopular with the mainstream, but it doesn’t end the silencing. It merely changes it, so rather than being silenced by the men’s rights activists and anti-feminists, we (women) silence each other because we don’t fit the right ideology, race, class, sexuality, and so on. I know it sounds a little hopeless, but all of the oppressions have to be addressed simultaneously as the feed off of each other. I feel like for that to be done we need an identity politics that is not based on exclusion. It’s really hard to dismantle the masters house by using the master’s tools, so using exclusion to fight exclusion is at the very least ironic and at the very worst oppressive.
Part of the reason I make the personal decision to engaged in a multiracial multigender dialogue on my blog is that I feel I can make more in roads in addressing these oppressions when I have everyone’s ear. The problem with combining identity politics and exclusion is that we reach a point where we can only dialogue with those who are of the same race, gender, class, sexuality, (dis)abiliy, age, and so on (and multiracial feminism surely suffers from this problem too.). Taken to it’s extreme logical conclusion this would ultimately this would mean I could only dialogue with myself. So here is the difficulty for me…..how do we address the multiple form of oppression in mixed groups without silencing anybody? When if ever is it appropriate to exclude people based on their identity? I see some need for feminist space, but I’m leery of cutting out the guys entirely, and I definitely don’t want to get rid of profeminist men. I also hate to see the feminist in-fighting, where we police the ranks of feminism and argue with each other incessantly (radical vs. liberal vs Marxist vs. multiracial). With that said, my critique come with respect for your viewpoint and with the utmost respect for my radical feminist sisters who have pushed the boundaries and challenged patriarchy. I’ll be fighting patriarchy my left hand and racism with my right (and I guess I’ll have to use my feet for the other isms).
Just my 2 cents (well more like 22 cents).
This comment was written by Rachel S.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Sorry I didn’t realize that it was that damn long….LOL!! I’m passionate about my feminist politics.
This comment was written by Rachel S.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
[shrug.] If Heart wants her threads here to be for radical feminists only, I have no problem with it. I also don’t know why Ginmar had to be pushed off the boards so the likes of jaketik could continue to blather on about themselves in every thread– as if they had paid not one whit of attention to any of the moderation discussion. Oh, let’s not mince words. They didn’t pay attention. They don’t give a shit. Why are they still here ?
There’s a lot I could say about the extremely rosy view of life on the Ms. Boards as espoused by Heart and littleviolet (funny that the latter has never mentioned before now that she’s a Ms. Vet), but I think that I’ll pass for now. I support the existence of spaces like the Margins, but I have good reasons for not posting there. I doubt that I would post in any thread headed by Heart or Quine, either, even if I had the Radical Feminist Stamp of Approval. Once bitten, twice shy, and all that.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
I really like what Rachel S. wrote. I consider myself part of the third-wave of feminism, however hard to pin down that may be. I am unwilling to separate issues of race, class, gender, disability, and sexuality. Radical feminists have been criticized, and rightly so IMHO, for their exclusion of intersecting oppressions. That being said, they are, of course, entitled to their space on the internet, I just don’t understand why it has to be here since Alas has always struck me as a blog that is pretty good at dealing with intersecting oppressions.
This comment was written by dorktastic.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
I won’t be posting here Alsis, don’t worry. I don’t have any rosy views of the Ms Boards, they were however feminist and run for feminists. There was no place for anti-feminists and misogynists on them.
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
I respectfully suggest that feminists who find themselves attacking Amp take a careful look at their goals. Bear with me a paragraph or two, please:
Amp is perhaps the most consistently careful, even-handed and, for want of a better term, evidence based participant in internet discourse I’ve ever met. He’s unfailingly civil and goes out of his way to be fair. He is strongly pro-feminist; I’m astonished to find anyone seriously denying that.
My view of Amp is the product of some years reading this blog and others, and I’m probably, for the most part, going to ignore anyone who just rails against him for being insufficiently feminist. The internet is vast and noisy, and I don’t have time to give everyone full, respectful consideration of their views. That’s a sad fact of cyberlife. I have to have filters, and trusted agents; Amp is one of those.
I am, I hope, a man whom feminists can reach — it’s not a waste of your time to point out to me that there are things I don’t see, things I’m doing wrong. You can change my behaviour by doing that. A somewhat minor example: I no longer automatically offer my seat on the bus to women my own age (unless they have, you know, a broken leg), it having been pointed out to me that doing so reinforces old, unhelpful stereotypes about male/female interactions. Not minor: I no longer favour legalization of prostitution, having been convinced by discussions here on Alas that decriminalization for prostitutes but not for johns is the preferable course of action.
So my point (finally!) is this: if your goals include changing the behaviour of men like me, make your case very carefully if you want me to stop trusting Amp and this blog as a good place to learn about feminism.
This comment was written by sennoma.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
[snicker] Yeah, but an anti-Semite and her apologists were a-okay, as long as they called themselves “radical feminists.” Whatever, Quine/violet. Nice to know some things never change.
I learned more than I ever wanted to know about the limits of radical feminism from that debacle. Fortunately, I know enough radical feminists who don’t have their heads up their asses to know that there’s still hope for us all.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
I’m not proposing anything “headed” by me, really. I’ve got my own websites, boards and other projects, announced and as-yet unannounced, which are already time-consuming and which promise to become more time consuming in the near future. There are good radical feminists here already, though, and others who would likely be here if they were unbanned or apologized-to. I’d envision threads like the old Ms. Boards threads which were reserved for radical feminist womenand protected by them, but open to all women with a genuine interest in topics being discussed. I’m thinking maybe I could begin the threads not only with must my own, but with other radical feminists’ posts.
Thanks to everybody who has been supportive so far, much appreciated. Hey alsis, I know how you feel, but I’ve always appreciated you and still do, just for what it’s worth.
Heart (Cheryl)
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Oh, and regarding restricted threads: I agree with what Jake said at #9. I’ll happily read those threads, and will not feel in the least disadvantaged or put-upon by the existence of one small space in which I have to shut up and listen. If experience is any guide, it will do me good.
This comment was written by sennoma.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
Hey, littleviolet, I think the Ms boards *teemed* with misogynists and anti-feminists not to mention garden variety bent wieners. I think plenty of space was made for them and eventually they destroyed the place. And I guess I don’t think there is anything at all that is rosy or festive about radical feminism– it acknowledges what is done to women and by whom, and there’s nothing at all rosy about that. So I am not really sure about the “rosy picture” part.
I just think space should be made for women, and in particular, for radical feminist women, which is not subject to the kind of diversion and trolling that happens when space isn’t made and then protected.
Heart (Cheryl)
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Could you clarify this a bit, Cheryl? I am a woman but by no means a radical feminist, and I am genuinely interested in feminist topics (and agree with some but not all feminist doctrine). Would I be permitted to post on these threads or not? Just using myself as an example here; I too could benefit from shutting up and listening.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
It’s nice of Amp to host this kind of discussion, but anyone who doesn’t like the way he does it should start their own blog, yes?
And… how can whoever makes this decision tell who’s a “radical feminist” and who isn’t? (I’m not even sure everyone in this party could agree on a definition, let alone identifying individuals. Didn’t Q Girl say yesterday or so that she’s the only “radical feminist” posting here? Where does that leave the rest of you?)
And that’s without bringing in the question of just who all these posters are anyway. I’m claiming to be a 60 year old woman lawyer, and as it happens the email address I’ve supplied is my office email, and can thus be traced to a real person, but what if my email was “hahagottcha@hotmail.com”? I could be a 20 year old guy, a 90 year old transvestite, George W. Bush - just anybody.
So, as I think about this, I’m thinking that limiting posting on certain threads to “radical feminists” has got to boil down to limiting posting to “certain persons whose expressed opinions on certain topics I agree with.” Whoever the I may be, in this case Cheryl I guess.
Nothing wrong with that. Since I don’t know what opinions Cheryl holds, I don’t know whether I’m a “radical feminist” for these purposes, but I very much suspect I’m not. In any case, the issues which will probably be discussed (I’m guessing again) may not interest me too much, since at this point I’m more practical than theoretical. But it sounds like fun for those who are interested.
Especially if Amp agrees. If he doesn’t, I guess you’re all thrown back on your own resources.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Typically I reas Alas via the RSS feed and do not read the comments. Initially it was something of a surprise to me to find that there was any controversy here at all - the blog posts themselves are universally feminist freindly and radical feminist leaning in their content and spin.
Obviously the right of a blog owner to enforce a moderation style is one of the perks of runnign ones own blog and certainly one of the core freedoms that the ‘net offers us. As such supporting the new moeration guidelines as the right of the owner of Alas goes without saying.
I’ll have to make sure I check out the comments now, there may be more diversity to this blog than I had thought.
This comment was written by Soulhuntre.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Well, they came, they plundered, got their kicks which they likely reported back elsewhere, and then they were banned or they left. However, their impact on Ms and to a great degree its demise, was minimal, imo, b/c their presense was FTMP. Yes, they diverted conversations and tried to control discourse in women’s space but OTOH, they for a time being, helped patch up the underlying conflicts, fractures and fissures within the community together as every feminist aligned with each other against them, because the anti-feminists and the misogynists were something we could all agree, was a common enemy.
But in times of “peace”, we only brought on our own eventual demise, in the midst of some very good dialoguing. Well, we would have done that probably, if the MS board folks hadn’t done that for us w/ their decision to close the board.
It’s the feminists who brought down Ms, and we all played a part in that, b/c alone, we had that power to do that. A good part of what led to that is what Rachel discussed in her post about identity politics and being pressured to choose one “ism” to be in allegience to, and that “ism” being as it was defined by relatively few women(when compared to the world of women).
That reality is what made the loss of the boards so painful to many people. I know that’s what made it painful to me, even though I had left already.
And it wasn’t women only threads or restricted threads that caused problems at Ms. What caused problems was when White women had problems with not being able to control dialogue on WOC threads, and other examples where there were “(insert) only” threads and those not included who belong to social groups used to being in control were unable to give up that control or to be excluded from discourse. That unwillingness to do do is what creates the problems, not the restricted threads themselves.
So I think if we’re going to have anti-feminist only threads, then definitely radical feminist only threads should be here. I’d like to see that.
God knows, I’ve argued with ginmar at Ms in the past, but I didn’t feel comfortable seeing her gone, and some antifeminists who are just as bad or worse allowed to stay. Others got timeouts, which I think is a good thing to implement. But I do understand it’s the blog administrator’s responsibility to make these decisions. I’ve had to make extremely difficult decisions with my own blog in the past couple days, so I understand it’s not an easy thing.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
I think that Soulhuntre points to an interesting fact - that if you only read the posts here, you are not in doubt that this is a feminist site. This is something I think people should not loose sight off.
Now, to the comment threads limited to certain groups - well, I have some adversions against that kind of threads, but am sure I could learn a lot from them. However, as others have pointed out, there might be some pratical problems with them. It would take a high degree of monitoring (or some modifications to the commenting feature) for it to be possible.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Yet, if it is possible, I think we could all learn a great deal from it, and it might make radical feminists feel more at home here.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
Susan, on Cheryl’s board one has to be a member to post (but not to read), and presumably to become a member one has to be vetted by Cheryl. A really determined troll could presumably get by the vetting (easily or with difficulty depending on Cheryl’s thoroughness), but would presumably be bounced immediately upon revealing his or her true agenda, so it wouldn’t be worth the effort for most people. The same process (the possibility of being bounced, if not the vetting) would probably apply to radical-feminist-only threads, and the same cost-benefit analysis as well.
And, btw, the clarity of your writing style reveals you to be not GWB. (Don’t let it go to your head: I can’t offhand think of fainter praise.)
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Hey, lu (and others), the threads I envision would be open to all women interested in discussing whatever the radical feminist(s) in the thread were discussing at any given moment. The only guidelines would be (1) no men; (2) no trolling or disruptions by antifeminist/men’s rights/father’s rights women. In other words, so long as women were participating in good faith and interested in the subject at hand, they would be welcome to participate, whether they identified as radical feminists or not. The thread would be protected, though, by those known to be, and identifying as, radical feminists, and initial posts would be written by me or those known to me to be radical feminists.
It’s not all that difficult to protect women-only space. I’ve done it on my own boards for going on five years now. Once in a very long while, someone who isn’t a woman slips in under the radar, but soon enough, I figure out who they are and they are history. We successfully protected woman-only space on the Ms boards, too, for the most part. In general, the space was respected by those who participated on the Ms boards and it only got crashed or trolled a very few times over a couple of years. What’s remarkable about that is, we didn’t have any ability to ban anybody or to keep anyone from posting against our will; nevertheless, in general, the thread was respected. That would have to happen here, too. People would have to be willing to respect the thread and the intentions for which it was created.
Heart (Cheryl)
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
You can determine from a person’s writings whether or not they are a Radical Feminist the same way that you can determine whether or not they are a Secular Humanist. If, on a Secular Humanist only thread, you were to question why nobody thought that morality comes from god, we would know that you are not a Secular Humanist. Similarly, on a Radical Feminist only thread, the moderator will notice if your statements go against any of the core values of Radical Feminism.
As to the technical details of moderating those threads, I’ll leave that to the moderator in question.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Lu,
GWB got pretty decent grades at Yale. Better than John Kerry’s. He’s no genius, granted, but it’s my theory he’s a lot smarter (and hence, a lot more evil) than he lets on. This “Ah shucks Ah’m jus’ a Texan” stuff is a pose, don’t be fooled. The creep.
(Off topic. Sorry.)
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Cheryl, this interests me. Are you suggesting that we (women) are so different from men that you can figure out someone’s gender just from what they write??
I certainly wouldn’t undertake to do this (I’d have about a 50/50 chance of guessing right) if I were reviewing legal pleadings or real estate contracts. Of course legal writing is a very specialized craft, highly ritualized.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
First of, I want to apologize to everyone if I’m not as responsive as folks would like; this is a busy week at my job, and although there are a lot of questions that perhaps I should address, I won’t be able to spend as much time on “Alas” as I’d prefer.
Heart wrote:
Just to clarify, although for a while “Alas” was possibly the most-read feminist poliblog[*], I’m happy to say that’s not true nowadays. In particular, “Alas” is just a flyspeck compared to Pandagon. I’m pretty sure Feministe gets more readers than “Alas,” too. I suspect there are a bunch of others, by now.
Also, I want to clarify that I only invited you to be a guest poster, not a regular poster - at least, not if “regular” means “long-term.” Here’s what my email to you said:
If you want a long-term blog, Heart - either for you alone, or a groupblog for a group of radical feminists blogging together - I think that’s would be a great idea. There are now a lot of feminist blogs (just look at the sidebar to see some of them!), but very few that could be described as radical feminist blogs. I’d definitely link to you, and I’d be happy to help you set things up, or to provide technical advice, if I can.
That’s just a couple of minor points I wanted to clear up. I’ll post again after I’ve given more thought to what’s written here. Thanks for starting this conversation, Heart.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Quite a few people have taken me for a woman because of my name, so it might be harder to distinguish between men and women that it first appears. Also, the difference between this place and Cheryl’s, is that all the other threads here are open to everybody - that is what makes it harder.
It is of course possible, but it might be that Amp doesn’t feel that it is that direction he wants to go, or that he doesn’t want to invest that much time in this blog.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
Susan, yes, I am pretty much saying that. You can’t figure out that someone is a woman strictly based on her writing style, of course, but there are other ways to figure things out. Everybody here on Alas pretty much knows who is a woman and who isn’t, right? On my boards, if someone new registers and I don’t know who they are, I look at their registration information, sometimes I google them, if that doesn’t tell me anything, then I ask other women on the boards if they know who the person is based on their screen name or e-mail address. If nobody knows them and I can’t figure anything out about them, then I approve their registration and wait and see. Eventually, they inevitably do something to out themselves if they aren’t women. I’ve got a list of about 30 people whose registrations I’ve either deactivated or never approved because they outed themselves as men or I knew they were men when they registered or strongly suspected they were men.
And, too, remember that I am saying the threads I’m proposing would not be open to trolling, including by women. A man participating pretending to be a woman would by definition be trolling. The moment that became obvious, he’d be gone.
Heart (Cheryl)
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
Cheryl, thanks for the clarification.
Susan, it might or might not be easy to tell the sex of a writer, but it would be pretty easy to tell the intent. Over time I think the sex would come out as well. As Cheryl said, it would be dependent primarily on everyone’s good faith and secondarily on the vigilance of the thread participants. I believe it could be done, especially on this board where the vast vast majority of the posters seem to write in good faith. (I know it doesn’t seem that way, but that’s because an exception is 100 times as irritating as anyone else.)
OT: Susan, I did not say he was dumb (I agree with you 100% that he is way smarter than he lets on: Cheney is merely Wormtail to GWB’s Voldemort), merely that he was inarticulate. Big difference. (And he may well write better than he talks, but, speechwriters being what they are, we’ll never know.)
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Eventually, they inevitably do something to out themselves if they aren’t women.
Or they don’t, and you never find out they aren’t women. [grin]
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
I’m a little unclear as to how this would work. I suspect I’m missing some key detail that makes it all resolve easily… or something that’s easily altered to allow your vision to come to pass.
It sounds like you’re proposing the space, but haven’t decided to commit to posting here. Are you offering to join in as a regular co-blogger? Because the alternative I see is Amp starting posts and then not commenting (as he’s not a radical feminist woman).
Also, in the comment policy thread, Amp mentioned that he was debating hanging up blogging altogether, rather than intensifying his comment moderation time. Have you worked out a way to get the banning button for yourself so that you can spare him the moderation of those threads?
All that said– if you’re willing to do the extra work and Amp’s willing to turn the responsibilities over to you (to preserve him from burnout), then I think your threads and moderating style might be very enlightening. Even for those of us who’d only be able to watch.
This comment was written by ScottM.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Thanks, Amp. That’s right, you did ask me to be a guest blogger. Well, it’s been a while, huh.
And you know, of course, I realize anybody can blog anytime they want.
I’m here right now, though, because yours is a feminist blog, and because you did invite me to blog here, whether as a guest blogger or regular blogger. And because I think radical feminists have been and are being silenced here, (and all over the internet, and in the media, and everywhere, for that matter, but it’s our silencing here, right now, that troubles me. ) I think that if provision can be made here for protected space for anti-feminists and men’s rights trolls, then there is some responsibility to see to it that space be made for radical feminists, too. What is the basis for protecting anti-feminist space here while banning radical feminists or allowing for such a hostile environment that we ultimately leave? I’m not saying you can’t have a place like that, obviously; anybody can blog any kind of way. I am saying that it doesn’t sit right. It doesn’t seem right. I think billing a blog as feminist while shutting out the radicals and offering special threads for anti-feminists is just wrong. If you’re going to do that, I think you ought to call your blog something other than a feminist blog.
Cheryl (Heart)
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Cheryl, maybe I didn’t catch the nuances, but it was my impression that the “special threads for anti-feminists” Amp was talking about were “offered” in the same spirit that jails are “offered” for shoplifters. Like, “you’re welcome over here, but not in the common space.”
Can anyone define “feminist”? This isn’t a rhetorical question. The word is being tossed about here quite a bit, and I’m feeling that different people mean different things by it.
Just to take myself as an example (so I don’t get whacked for talking about someone else) I’m a 60 year old woman lawyer. I went into law when it was pretty much a male profession, and you wouldn’t believe how I was treated, or the things my male alleged colleagues said to me. Without an iota of shame, by the way. I don’t even believe these stories myself any more. I didn’t “fight for women’s rights” in the sense of a crusade. I didn’t think about it that way. I had a family to support, and I loved my work, and I didn’t fancy being treated badly, so I pretty much gave as good as I got. It was the bold male, I assure you, who said something rude to me twice.
Partly as a result of the efforts of me and my generation, things have changed a lot in the legal profession, though we have yet to achieve perfection. At any rate, no young woman going into law now will ever be treated as we were treated.
Do I think women should be treated equally with men? Well, yeh, what did you think??? That’s kind of a dumb question even.
Nevertheless, I’m pretty sure I don’t qualify as a “feminist” by the standards of anyone here. Not single-minded enough, I’m guessing, though I’m not sure.
___________
Agreed, perhaps GWB is more inarticulate than dumb. Or maybe not. That might be an act too, who can tell.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
Heart said:
Hey, lu (and others), the threads I envision would be open to all women interested in discussing whatever the radical feminist(s) in the thread were discussing at any given moment. The only guidelines would be (1) no men; (2) no trolling or disruptions by antifeminist/men’s rights/father’s rights women. In other words, so long as women were participating in good faith and interested in the subject at hand, they would be welcome to participate, whether they identified as radical feminists or not.
I have a problem with these guidelines. The “no men” thing. Do you really think that no man, at any time, can contribute to a discussion? Shouldn’t each person be judged by their merits, not by their sex? Isn’t that one of the main things feminists fight for? To be judged on who they are, what they can do, what they can offer? Not what their sex is.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Heart, I have nothing in principle against women-only threads here (just as I was in favor of them on the Ms Boards). If you want to guest post, and make your threads women-only spaces, that’s cool with me.
However, I have a few concerns.
1) I’m not comfortable providing space for women-born-women only threads (i.e., threads that ban transsexuals from posting).
2) Someone other than me would have to moderate those threads, obviously.
3) Some of the folks you object to me banning from “Alas” have said pretty disgusting things about me (i.e., darkly muttering about pedophelia when I post photos of my honorary nieces, lying that I had gotten multiple women pregnant, etc). I don’t want to create space for “open season on Amp” threads.
4) I was beat up a lot as a kid. I’m not saying that to garner sympathy, but to try and make you understand that I can’t deal with bullies. And although you can’t see it, some of your radfem friends are bullies, imo.
I’m concerned that you may be expecting me to do the work of maintaining and paying for the blog, and to turn this blog into safe space for people who trigger me (and for it to therefore cease being safe space for me). I’m not sure that’s a fair thing for you to demand.
If we can get past these four issues, then I think we can experiment with women-only threads on “Alas.”
[Edited to remove something that could have diverted the thread]
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Hi Susan, could you maybe explain what you believe feminism should be about or your ideas about it or why you consider yourself not to be a feminist. I think from what you’ve told us about your background that you were actively living the struggle that feminists here talk about (not that they don’t live the struggle themselves). Do you think there’s a disconnect between feminism (which seems to just be a lot theory and talk) and the act of actually fighting for women’s rights. Sorry if this is a confusing post. It’s kind of off-topic too, but I’m genuinely interested. Thank you.
This comment was written by anashi.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
That’s rank Amp. Why didn’t you tell me about such posts? That’s assholery to the umpteenth degree.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
The only troll-free spaces are closed listservs which function by invitation only and moderate new members’ posts. The realistic goal is troll minimization.
I am fine with a trial of this “feminist only” moderated thread mechanism. If the “radical feminist” discourse gets too esoteric, feminist readers will wander off to other threads. If discourse is of high quality, then the moderated threads concept will survive. I would tend to start more inclusive, ie, “feminist/womanist” rather than “radical feminist/separatist”, and encourage transwomen (and feminist transmen and genderqueers, and any feminist men who have the discretion to not dominate the discussion) to consider themselves thread citizens. I am here to learn. If Amp has a good link to an article or statistics bearing upon an issue in the thread, I have no problems with him posting same.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Not that I’d begin to presume to answer for Susan, but I think she’s referring to a few threads that occurred regarding rape and the historical facts that surround it cirque the early / mid 20th century, and also some of the pro/anti-choice threads that have occurred.
I’d definitely qualify Susan as a feminist, though I personally believe that some of her beliefs are unintentionally harmful due to what I perceive as an 0ccassionally anachronistic point of view.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
I like the idea of threads with no anti-feminists or trolls and all, but not sure i like the idea of no men. Often (usually i think) people online assume I’m a male cuz of my name (even though it’s unisex) and I’m just not sure how that would work. I think just banning any anti-feminist talk would work better. Besides, I think Amp IS a feminist, even if some posters here don’t, and even though he’s a male. I think having a whole blog be woman only, like ur message board, would work better.
one of the things i like about this blog is that there is such a diversity, and while i definatley don’t like hearing the sa how me anti-feminist arguments over and over, i think Amp’s working on new moderation policies that will help that. Restricting any threads to only female posting sounds extreme, especially considering the blog owner is male.
As to radical feminism, i don’t think i really know what one has to believe in or do to be part of that group, so i don’t even know if i classify or not. either way i’d have no issue with radical feminist posts on here, at least then maybe i could learn what it entails?
This comment was written by Casey.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Susan: My favorite definition of feminism is that oldy but goldy: Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
All the issues that come up again and again relate back to that simple issue: abortion (women are people, not incubators) rape (women are people, not warm holes surrounded by inconveniences), employment equality (women are people, not cheap labor), etc.
I work in a homeless shelter and am literally sexually harrassed all day every day by my clients. For a sample, check out my live journal entry today.
A troll-free zone would be invaluable to me. I don’t necessarily agree that it should be female only or even feminist only, but that only feminist and pro-feminist sentiments can be expressed in that thread.
And Amp, while I’m not as angry with you over the anti’s and MRA that you allow to hang out as other radical feminists I know and like, I have sometimes felt that the analogy about a blog for civil rights activists being invaded by the KKK and then the civil rights activists being castigated for being rude to the KKK when they were “so polite” would be a useful one to bring up. I have followed some of your regular posters home and been stunned at the swamp I stumbled into. While they may have chosen their words carefully here, their intent is very clear when you visit them on their home turf, and I’m amazed that you tolerate them.
and while the more angry style of my good friend who will not derail this thread is not (usually, unless I’m fresh out of “nice”) my own, her sort of angry rhetoric often cuts through a lot of polite meaninglessness and allows those of us who have been waiting for a wave to ride it in. Sometimes I wince at her anger even while acknowledging it’s important and valuable anger, and sometimes, even as close as we are, we disagree.
I think the rules can be created in such a way as to create a “moderated, bashing-free” zone. In any case, I have no intention of ceasing to read or reply, because I think the discussions here are generally good, and sometimes I get the added bonus of playing troll hunter (my biggest vice).
Finally, the fact that this issue around who can and can’t reply and the boundaries of the blog is being discussed is a Good Thing, regardless of outcome. You are a braver soul than I, Amp. While I have always been an outspoken civil rights activist, I have never dared to create a “civil rights” space intended for minorities, because it is so incredibly difficult as a White person to be credible in that role. Similarly, you creating a feminist space, as a male, was a very difficult task, and you have done very well with it, overall. Because of the nature of this space as a feminist space hosted by a male, it has a unique, and I think valuable, dynamic.
This comment was written by odanu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
“Hey, littleviolet, I think the Ms boards *teemed* with misogynists and anti-feminists not to mention garden variety bent wieners. I think plenty of space was made for them and eventually they destroyed the place. And I guess I don’t think there is anything at all that is rosy or festive about radical feminism”“ it acknowledges what is done to women and by whom, and there’s nothing at all rosy about that. So I am not really sure about the “rosy picture” part.”
Heart, misogynists and anti-feminists got *banned* at Ms. The moderators did it regularly. There was no discussion of the actual legitimacy of feminism the way it is allowed here and there was certainly no moderator chiding feminists for being insufficiently respectful to sexists. What didn’t happen was much moderation of the feminists posting there so a lot of things got out of hand. None of the SYG trolls who are given such a warm welcome here would have lasted any time at all on the Ms boards.
As for the “rosy picture”, I didn’t say that you had that, Alsis did. I’m not sure if you were addressing me there.
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
I think I expressed myself badly on the threads Kim refers to. What I was trying to say was that when I was in my late teens and early 20’s rape wasn’t perceived to be a serious issue by me or my friends. Not that it wasn’t serious when it happened, but that it didn’t happen to us very often. Not often enough to worry about very much.
Or, that was my perception, and I’d contend that my perceptions are as good as anyone else’s, so that if someone else right now believes that rape is quite common now (or, was more common then, a topic on which they would probably have less information than I do) that is their perception.
I was told that my perceptions were invalid (with the undertone that I was a bad person for having those perceptions). I didn’t take than any more kindly than my adversaries would have taken a similar observation on my part.
But we need not hash this over. It is probable, as I said, that I expressed myself badly.
Do I think women should have rights equal to those of men? Well, duh. But I’ve been called some pretty ugly names here for not being a “feminist”, or not being “feminist” enough, some of these names quite recent.
Hm. I don’t think there should be a disconnect between talk and action. If there is, we’re wasting our time just talking. I think. I’m not sure how much “theory” is necessarily involved in feminism. Like, what part of “treated equally” is intellectually challenging?
I think - I don’t know you-all - that many of the younger women here are still fighting the battle we took up from our mothers and passed on to our daughters, and now in some cases, granddaughters. I wouldn’t accuse anyone here of just talking.
But…. I’m not real good at “orthodoxy.” What I mean by that is, I’m not real good at believing what people tell me just because they say so. Like, I didn’t believe it when “everyone” said that “women can never succeed in corporate law because the clients won’t stand for it.”
But by the same token I’m a problem to some feminists. When someone says, for example, “This is a rape culture,” I tend to ask, “What does that mean?” And some of the answers (along the lines of “all heterosexual intercourse is de facto rape” or, “this culture is fundamentally built on rape, real and theoretical”) don’t make the cut with me. They don’t square with my experience.
Sometimes too I find that women who identify themselves as “radical feminists” just curse me out on general principles. Probably because I don’t take orders very well.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
Susan, is it possible that you’re stereotyping or misremembering? I very much doubt that anyone on “Alas” has claimed that all heterosexual sex is de facto rape, for instance; that’s more of an unfair stereotype of what radical feminists say, than it is something that’s actually said.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Have as many women only threads as you want. I think it’s a good idea. Even a neccesary one. I’ll be glad to watch.
That said, reducing Amps moderation policy to “shutting out the radicals” is oversimplification. Lots of people Amp moderates who are, in fact, radical, are moderated for reasons that have nothing to do with being radical. He moderated them because they were being bullies to women as well as to men.
If it’s impossible to have a “radicals welcome” policy while having an equaliy valid “no bullies” policy, what you’ve got is a system in which bullies get to make the rules.
This is a seperate issue from a policy on banning MRAs and anti-feminists, and having women only threads. It deserves to be treated like one.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
Maureen, the issue isn’t just about an analogy to Civil Rights activists being rude to KKKers, it’s also about (to stretch the analogy) Nation Of Islam radicals getting to dictate policy to disciples of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 7:11 pm
I never said that anyone said that here, Amp. To my knowledge, no one ever has.
Indeed, I was trying to make an illustration that wouldn’t offend any individual here, or make specific reference to any conversation here. I have indeed been told precisely that by real-life radical feminists, or women who claimed to be radical feminists. (I’m beginning to realize that we do have to take peoples’ word for whether they are “radical feminists” or not.)
My point was just that simply because someone who labels herself a “radical feminist” says something, doesn’t mean that I necessarily believe it. I could have used actual examples from Alas, but I don’t want to start a fight right here and now on any of those topics; the whole question of my status is quite off the subject of this thread.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
A very clear analysis, Josh.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Kim (bv!) wrote:
:shrug: That kind of stuff really isn’t very important to me. But I still don’t want to see it, or its authors, on “Alas.”
(To clarify, they didn’t accuse me of being a pedophile. They accused me - and all the adults around Sydney, for that matter - of being horribly negligent to post photos of Sydney on the internet, since pedophiles might see the photos.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
Josh, I disagree…in a true Civil Rights space, both Nation of Islam and MLK would have space and strong disagreements, but the core of “civil rights” would remain the valid concern of both groups. However, if the KKK is allowed to participate in what is nominally a Civil Rights space, both NoI and MLK Civil Rights Activists are put on the defensive, defending their very right to exist as activists, and the valid arguments that need to occur between the groups don’t have as much time and space to occur.
This comment was written by odanu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
But here’s the rub, odanu. What, exactly, qualify as “feminist and pro-feminist sentiments”? Does the “sentiment” that rape was not perceived, by white, middle-class young women, as a major problem 40 years ago make the cut?
The answer is No. Why not? Not because that opinion endorses or seeks the subjugation of women, but because it differs from the Received Feminist Orthodoxy. Of some feminists at least.
There are any number of possible statements of that type, and I can probably be depended upon to make quite a number of them, simply because, although I certainly believe in equality for women, I don’t Receive Orthodoxy very well. I didn’t receive the Orthodoxy of Women’s Inherent Inferiority very well, and for the very same reasons I’m not real popular among radical feminists.
In Josh’s analogy, I’m… MLK maybe. I’m certainly not the KKK, but I’m not going to fit in with the Nation of Islam either.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
Well, that’s not quite as bad as what I initially understood it to mean. That’s more of the drive-by parenting assholery than rank assholery. I’d rather just tell idiots like that to piss off and be done with it. Then again, I savor the use of hedonistic verbage far more than you!
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
i disagree with any space claiming to be progressive shutting out the opportunity for any contrary response. hell, i have that problem whether the space claims to be progressive or not.
disallowing people to comment because of their gender or political beliefs is wrong, in my mind, period. i’m certain none of you mean it this way, but this whole discussion about restricted threads makes it seem to me that you fear people making challenges to your views. in my opinion, that’s wrong, and a dangerous path to go down.
i don’t identify as feminist and certainly not as a radical feminist. i read this blog as well as other blogs all over the political / experiential spectrum because i’m enlightened by multiple viewpoints. it bothers me to read serious discussion on restricting threads to some kind of echo chamber the way it would bother me to read serious discussion on a religious-conservative blog banning non-Christians from commenting, or a conservative blog banning anyone who is liberal–or PERCEIVED as liberal, there’s the REALLY scary idea–from commenting.
nobody likes trolls, but they are a fact of internet discussion. i think it would be much healthier to delete their comments or ban them on a case-by-case basis…and i’m talking in the case of true trolling, in which a person is merely baiting people for the sake of entertainment–not a case of dissent with the majority of the group.
reducing voices to those which echo a single viewpoint is never healthy for a community, regardless of what the voices are. squashing opposing viewpoints, keeping them out, restricting them, is exactly why so many of us loathe and abhor the Bush administration’s policies. i have yet to see any convincing argument in this discussion that clearly separates a thread restricted based on political belief / gender, and then only going on the perceptions of a few, from many of the practices of the current Republican White House.
i’m a new reader to Alas. i don’t consider myself a terribly important part of the community here as i mostly lurk. but in case anyone’s asking, that’s my $0.02.
This comment was written by beth.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Thank you Susan for answering my questions :)
This comment was written by anashi.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
odanu -
I said bullying I was quite clear on the choice of words.. There is a difference between bullying and strong disagreement. If you can’t see that, then there’s no conversation, you’re just re-defining my words.
I know you. You don’t do that sort of thing. You’re better than that. We can disagree on what constitutes bullying, but that’s a diferent subject.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
odanu: and while the more angry style of my good friend who will not derail this thread is not (usually, unless I’m fresh out of “nice”) my own, her sort of angry rhetoric often cuts through a lot of polite meaninglessness and allows those of us who have been waiting for a wave to ride it in. Sometimes I wince at her anger even while acknowledging it’s important and valuable anger, and sometimes, even as close as we are, we disagree.
So beautifully written, and I so agree, odanu, thanks for writing it.
Honestly, having read through the posts here and heard from some on my boards, it’s sounding to me as though what I’ve proposed is not a good idea after all, is wrong-headed, won’t work, is misguided, idiotic, some or all of the above. So I will likely withdraw my proposal. I’m awaiting some e-mails, but overall, there seem to be more thumbs pointing down than thumbs pointing up, and I’m good with that. I had an idea, I had the ability to post about it, I didn’t like what went down with ginmar, I did what I thought was a good thing to do.
In the meantime, I don’t mind responding to some of the questions and thoughts here.
In my opinion, a woman is a radical feminist if she agrees that the world we live in is a male supremacist world, that women in general are subjugated and oppressed by men and male institutions. The best way to evaluate the way male supremacy works is by comparing the situations of men and women who are similarly situated. A rich white woman, for example, is never going to be as well off as a rich white man, because she is or was still vulnerable to rape, objectification, sexual harassment, sexual assault, incest, molestation, in ways which the rich white man is not, in ways which affect her or have affected her from the time of her birth. A homeless man on the street is still better off than a homeless woman for the same reasons. And in between these two extremes, if we look at men and women, doesn’t matter the ethnicity, class standing, age, so long as we are talking about men and women who are similarly situated, we see across the board that men fare better in this world than women do. And that’s because the world is a male supremacist world. If a woman sees this, acknowledges that this is true, then she is probably a radical feminist, in that she is understanding sexism as the first or root or foundational or core oppression, with all other oppressions — racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, modeled after this one.
I think that the threads I was envisioning are different than the “prison” threads for mens’ rights guys because the mens’ rights guys would be restricted to the prison threads, whereas radical feminists here, and women, just in general, would continue to be free to post anywhere they liked. The threads I envisioned would allow those of us born into male supremacy, with a specific set of life experiences based on being born to second class status, to speak freely of what it means to be girls and women, without feeling pressured internally or externally to take care of or protect the sensibilities of men — something which has always been expected of us as girls. We are groomed to be caretakers for boys and men. I’ve spent many, many thousands of hours now in woman-only space, both in real life and on the internet, and I can attest to how important and beneficial this kind of space is to all women, and to the differences in the dynamics amongst women when men are present as opposed to when they aren’t present. There are times to interact with men, at least for women who aren’t separatists, and I don’t say there aren’t. But I also think woman-only venues are important for feminist women. That isn’t discrimination on the basis of sex, anymore than meetings of people of color which exclude white people are discriminatory. Those who are subjugated and oppressed need separate space to heal, to bond, to strategize and dream their own liberation.
Reading through your four points there, Amp, a few thoughts. I was proposing threads overseen, in general, by me, with blog posts written by me and other radical feminists and with the threads moderated as a joint radical feminist effort (meaning you wouldn’t have to do extra work or any of the writing.) I’d want the threads to be for women only by the traditional definition, meaning women born female, mostly because our experiences under male supremacy are unique and distinctive, but for some other reasons as well. I can’t really think of any solution to the problem of radical feminist women whom you understand to be bullying people.
little violet, I think there were lots of misogynists and anti-feminists parked out at Ms all of the years I was there, beginning in July or so of 2000, who were never banned. Darren, Erik, Snarfangel, Elissa, and others come to mind. I also think there were plenty of threads created to debate the validity of feminism, although they were not always framed in those terms.
Well, those are my thoughts. Again, it’s sounding like my proposal is a no-go, but I thought I ‘d post these thoughts anyway.
Heart (Cheryl)
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
Having just checked Heart’s post and its link to The Margins (”the troll” is a reference to me) I had better come out of retirement and repeat (to whom it may concern) the advice I gave to Dana on the “New Policy” link: consult Ginmar’s blog and compare her original text with my précis. You’ll then be able to decide whether I “pulled it out of my ass” or not.
By the way, won’t there be a right-to-reply problem with the proposed all-female, all-rad threads? We can be quite certain, human nature being what it is, that some posts will contain unflattering references and downright attacks on Alas-posters (men, non-rad women) with no access to the thread in question and as a result unable to set the record straight where it matters.
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 9:47 pm
Okay, Heart, it’s your choice. But I’m sorry that I won’t get to read what you might have posted here.
However, I still think you might want to consider setting up a blog, either for yourself or as a groupblog for a select bunch of radfem writers. As you recently wrote on The Margins,
That’s all still true, even (or perhaps especially) if you’re not posting on “Alas.” Blogging might put your writings out there for a new audience.
Plus, running a blog doesn’t have to be much work (although it certainly can be!) Between the Margins and Ms., you probably have a huge backstock of writing that you could recycle into blog posts.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
I’d want the threads to be for women only by the traditional definition, meaning women born female, mostly because our experiences under male supremacy are unique and distinctive, but for some other reasons as well.
Why is that? If anything, I’d think transgendered women would have even more insights to add then women born female, because they’ve lived as both genders so they can see the contrast firsthand. I think they would be especially conscious of sexism and gender roles. And I say this as a female-born woman.
I agree with your general description of the need for women-only spaces, Cheryl (although I’m not sure Alas is the right place for one), but I don’t think excluding transgendered individuals, who already face so much exclusion and ridicule, is the way to go.
This comment was written by sparklegirl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
Let me also say that, although I do think women-only discussions have their place and can be very beneficial, I’ve learned a lot from male feminists, particularly Amp and Hugo Schwyzer.
There have been certain feminist posters on this board who have said that neither is a true feminist, and that bothers me. Why should one person be the judge of who is feminist and who isn’t? I’m a woman, and I strongly consider myself a feminist, but I’m aware that both Amp and Hugo know more about feminism than I do. While I may not agree with them on everything, I can learn a lot from them, as well as from the many female feminists whose blogs I also read.
And I personally refer to them as feminists, rather than pro-feminists, because I take feminism to be “the radical notion that women are people.” One does not have to be female to support that assertion–just as one does not have to be racial minority to feel the same way about minorities, or a sexual minority to feel the same way about GLBT/queer individuals. I’m wary of the claim that it’s nearly impossible for a man to be a feminist, which I worry could drive off our male allies.
In my own life, I have known many men who treat women with respect and see them as equals without suffering negative consequences from other men, contrary to what some posters here have claimed must always be the case. I think it depends a lot on the social circle that a man is part of.
That said, I do agree with the many posters here who have complained about trolls and non- or anti-feminists who constantly derail discussions. I appreciate Amp’s attempts to deal with this problem through his new moderation policies, and I think that feminist-only threads are a good idea, as well as relegating MRAs/anti-feminists to certain threads and banning them from the rest of the blog so that the rest of us don’t constantly have to “reinvent the wheel.”
There’s a fine line between banning the comments that stifle discussion, and stifling discussion by banning comments; since not everyone will agree exactly where to draw the line, it is up to the moderator of each particular blog to make his/her own judgment calls. I think Amp will probably do a good job of walking that line, and I’ll be interested in seeing where this blog goes in the future.
This comment was written by sparklegirl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
Tom Nolan: If you think that that’s an exaggeration on my part, take a look at Ginmar’s website and the prescription you would have to follow to be considered a feminist in her eyes: you would have not only to utterly forswear the Patriarchy, but reject all those tainted with male sexism (it might be your brother, it might be your father, no matter - feminism for men is a vocation or it is nothing!): in short you would have to die to the world and live exclusively in the consciousness of women’s suffering. Evidently, only an infinitesimal number of men are going to make the grade. And Ginmar speaks with a voice that many radical feminists recognize as authentic and representative.
I don’t think that Ginmar said this at all, anywhere, ever. I think she said men would be ostracized if they were feminists, that they’d be outcasts. And I think she’s absolutely right about that. And how aggravating and infuriating is it to me that now she can’t be here to defend herself against these ongoing distortions and dissemblings. I mean, what. You, Tom Nolan, are worried about not being able to reply to possible “attacks” and “unflattering references” in theoretical, nonexistent, woman-only, radical feminist threads; in fact, your own attacks and “unflattering references” and distortions have resulted in the complete silencing of a radical feminist woman’s voice here. Well, no matter. Ve haf vays.
Having said all of that, and speaking for myself only and not ginmar, I think the world could use a few — more than a few — men who would indeed put women first, who would, indeed, reject the men in their lives — including sons, fathers, and brothers — who were sexists and woman-haters, who would forswear patriarchy, and who would live exclusively in the consciousness of women’s suffering. ginmar hasn’t said that, but I will. Unapologetically. Hell yeah. It’s absolutely this kind of man and this kind of behavior which is necessary if women are to have the equality you’ve assured us you believe in. Squealing and whining and making stuff up because a woman has the audacity to suggest that supporting feminist women might cost men something isn’t the behavior of an ally. It is the behavior of a male supremacist who is unwilling to give up a bit of the privilege and entitlement he enjoys.
Heart (Cheryl)
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:24 am
There’s a lot going on here, but I’d like to respond specifically to one point that touches on several issues, “What is a radical feminist?”
As Cathy Young’s recent appearance here attests, we can debate what it means to be a feminist without reaching consensus and discerning who is or isn’t radical feminist would be just as insufficient for definitive answers. But this is one area where I think the process matters more than conclusions because identities naturally shift. The education gained in discovering what kind of feminist one is and the internal questioning involved in figuring it out are the main point, not necessarily the adoption of the name that identifies a person as a member of a like minded group.
A woman once wrote that her feminist process was: liberal, feminist, pro-sex feminist, radical feminist. When I question what makes me call myself a radical feminist, my process looks a lot like that. I’ve always considered myself a liberal, but in my early 20’s I came to consider myself a feminist first, a liberal second. When searching the brain files for what shifted to lead me to make that change, it begins with what I consider to be my first truly feminist act.
I’d written plenty of college papers on women and was outraged at the inequalities I saw enough to monetarily and verbally support women’s equality, but these were also causes that personally benefited me. I read Katha Pollitt’s column about Tabitha Walrond and at her bequest wrote a letter, making what I feel to be my first wholly feminist act. Somewhere along the way I came across the idea that character isn’t what you’re willing to do for others when you know you’ll get something back, it’s what you’re willing to do when you know you’ll receive nothing in return. To me, more than being a liberal, being a feminist is not just believing in women’s equality and identifying with the femin part but in remembering the suffix ist as marking someone who practices or takes action on what they believe. Usually there will be overlap in what serves all woman and what serves myself, and I think part of being a radical in general is seeing big picture theories of how we’re all interconnected (my ENFJ typing is all about the iNtuition), but I’m speaking in the deepest philosophical sense of committing oneself to bettering the lives of all women.
From there I began reading more and openly identified with feminists. Soon I learned enough to realize my regular use and support of pornography (strip clubs, etc) fit under what’s known as pro-sex feminism, and I accepted that. The shift from pro-sex to radical was one I figure took about two years beginning to end. I hadn’t been applying my feminism to pornography for all the usual reasons like acceptance from my porn-using partner, the thrill of being a baddie bad girl who used a boy thing, all those twirly emotions that collide around sexuality.
What made me apply my feminism to pornography for the first time? One day at a bookstore I saw a book simply titled Pornography so I decided to pick it up and randomly read a few pages. Catherine MacKinnon was describing a scene from pornography where the woman was begging the man to ejaculate inside her and he says something like, “I don’t come inside bitches like you, I’ll only come onto you,” which he proceeded to do. (I don’t have the book and it’s been a few years so please forgive possible detail errors.)
MacKinnon asked about and expanded on what that means in an industry where “the money shot” is called the money shot and is used so widely. Why might the pornographers who make these movies consider ejaculating onto women something disrespectful, and what does it mean for women that these pornographers who consider it disrespectful make what minuscule dialogue they put in about emphasizing the disrespect? I’d never thought of it like that before and the questions haunted me, but I mostly tried to ignore the icky feeling the very asking of it brought out because I liked using pornography.
I read more and discussed it with others, and I started becoming more radical in other areas of my life, like becoming a vegetarian and working on the campaign for a Green Party candidate running for city council. Still a pro-sex pornography user, I moved to a city famous for its unconventional politics and booming prostitution industry and dived deeper into green politics and anti-corporate activism while continuing to honor my feminism through pro-choice activism. These forces came together in actualized practice when I started to find myself turned off by the idea of using pornography from 1) a feminist viewpoint 2) an anti-corporate control over media viewpoint 3) a sexual health educator’s viewpoint. A radical and a feminist but not yet a radical feminist, one night while using porn and making love it totally disgusted me that there was a television diverting our attention, that a freaking boob tube appliance was a third partner in our lovemaking and it made the two of us not as genuinely there with each other. I strive so hard to be true to myself and to my woman’s sexuality, and I felt bamboozled by pornography when I realized how far astray from helping me achieve that aspiration it had led me.
In the longer version there are the people I’ve known and loved since a child who suffered in and from prostitution and how that affected the final move, but I’ll skip that very personal portion of the narrative. This is the part where I find out for the first time, through the MS boards, that there are other feminists who feel about prostitution, pornography and the commercial exploitation of female sexuality the same way I had come to feel about it. They also turned out to be anti-corporate, anti-war, pro-environmentalism and pro-alternative politics, just like me. They called themselves radical feminists, so I looked into the matter and after a good deal of reading decided it was a fitting term.
That was long, but short for the changed attitudes and time passed it represents. I write it hoping some feminist will read these words and see something of her own story in what I’ve written, and I hope it helps her to recognize the feminist ethics she’ll live by just as I’ve found mine.
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:44 am
I reject any person in my life that is a woman-hater, much the same way I reject anyone who is a racist. For me, that is not the kind of person I want to be around. I also work very hard to change the minds of people in my profession (systems development) that women are good at doing this stuff (sadly, some people still belive that computer-related stuff is mens’ work). If I have the choice of working together with a woman or a man, I will always pick the woman, all other things being equal, as I find that groups which includes both men and women tends to work better than all-male groups (I can’t really comment on all-female groups).
Yet, I am unsure if I can be considered a feminist in the sense that most people here use it.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.I come from an entirely different society, where the problems are different. We still work for equal pay for equal work, but the gender gap is much different in Denmark than in the US. There are still too few female leaders, but the difference is shrinking. Rape is not as widespread as in the US (not even when you consider it per capita), and it is not accepted by anyone I know of. Men consider childrearing part of their duties, and I have yet to hear a man in real life say that it’s not up to the woman to decide if she wants an abortion or not .
Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 5:59 am
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff Writes: Susan, yes, I am pretty much saying that. You can’t figure out that someone is a woman strictly based on her writing style, of course, but there are other ways to figure things out. Everybody here on Alas pretty much knows who is a woman and who isn’t, right?
I have to say that’s not my experience. :-)
Honestly, straightforwardly, while in principle I’m in favor of feminist-friendly space online (women-only is, I believe, a goal that shouldn’t be attempted: it is not possible to tell gender reliably online) I think it’s a distortion of what Alas a Blog represents to have it be on this blog.
This blog is an anti-feminist space: Ampersand likes talking like a feminist, but quite evidently also likes having anti-feminists feel comfortable hanging out here and derailing any real feminist discussion of Amp’s posts, and is uncomfortable with having aggressive unfriendly feminists like Ginmar hanging out here and giving the anti-feminists a good kicking.
Amp is deeply unwilling to make the blog as a whole feminist-friendly. He’s got a right to do this: it’s his blog. This isn’t a space for feminists to have good discussions which won’t be derailed by anti-feminists: that’s not what Amp wants and it’s not, therefore, what’s going to happen. Attempting to do so is a waste of time.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 6:11 am
“Darren, Erik, Snarfangel, Elissa, and others come to mind.”
I joined in 2002 and I only recognise one of those names. I definitely don’t think you could say they were given free rein and destroyed the boards. The point I’m making is that the moderation policy here is different from the Ms moderation policy, that’s all.
“it’s sounding to me as though what I’ve proposed is not a good idea after all, is wrong-headed, won’t work, is misguided, idiotic, some or all of the above”
I’d have said mistaken, the other descriptions are a bit harsh. Although having read your boards, I appreciate what you were trying to do. I thought this was another of Ampersand’s guest-blogger spots and I’m sorry for jumping to conclusions. I didn’t realise that you’d seized the inititiative. So thank you for providing this space to talk about what has happened here to Ginmar and to others.
I don’t know if you are interested, but this is a huge feminist space (I think they have about three thousand members), it’s mainly third wave and there is a lot of anitpathy towards radical feminism but if there’s any place where it would be possible to discuss radical feminism with people who don’t have much knowledge of it, this would be it -
http://www.livejournal.com/community/feminist/
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 6:15 am
//This blog is an anti-feminist space: Ampersand likes talking like a feminist, but quite evidently also likes having anti-feminists feel comfortable hanging out here and derailing any real feminist discussion of Amp’s posts//
i still fail to understand how someone disagreeing with you constitutes derailing your discussion. i still fail to understand how restricting their ability to talk to you or reply to you would solve anything.
i also vehemently disagree with the women-born-women only restriction. i also say that as a female-born woman.
This comment was written by beth.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 6:40 am
beth: i still fail to understand how someone disagreeing with you constitutes derailing your discussion.
Ich las nur Deutschen. Ich beharre, daß Sie Ihre Anmerkung in Deutschen übersetzen, damit ich verstehen kann, über was Sie sprechen.
i still fail to understand how restricting their ability to talk to you or reply to you would solve anything.
Ich fahre fort, Sie auf Deutsch zu unterbrechen, bis Sie entweder Ihre Anmerkung in Deutschen übersetzen oder mir erklären, warum Sie nicht werden.
(Translation provided via Babelfish, though, since in fact I don’t read German well enough.)
Andere gebürtige deutsche Lautsprecher unterbrechen jetzt wieder und fangen an, zu besprechen, auf Deutsch, das Thema von, warum Leute fortbestehen, auf, auf englisch bekanntzugeben. Einige Leute, die ein wenig Deutsches schreiben, versuchen, auf Deutsch zu debattieren, warum einige Leute der bequemeren Eintragung auf englisch glauben würden. Und Sie glauben nicht, daß dieses das Gewinde entgleist?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 7:06 am
Ampersand: 3) Some of the folks you object to me banning from “Alas” have said pretty disgusting things about me (i.e., darkly muttering about pedophelia when I post photos of my honorary nieces, lying that I had gotten multiple women pregnant, etc). I don’t want to create space for “open season on Amp” threads.
Amp, that is such an incredible distortion of this thread that I’m aghast. (I was initially aghast because I thought you meant that someone was accusing you of being a pedophile: but having tracked down the thread, I see that’s far from being the case.)
You choose to post pictures of your honorary nieces on your blog. That means you’re making their pictures available for public discussion. That means it’s fairly likely (as the world goes) that some pedophile probably has yanked those pics and is wanking over them. So you are willing to continue posting the pics, but unwilling to consider the fact that this makes them publicly available for everything from porn for pedophiles to feminist discussion on why you are willing to make pics of your honorary nieces so available?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 8:02 am
As a feminist man, I agree that feminis-only spaces are necessary. Although it makes me sad, I am willing to accept that women-only feminist spaces are necessary if women feminists say so. Without that security, it may be impossible in our culture for truly free and creative dialogue on certain topics to emerge. I would hope that the fruit of such places would be shared so that others might benefit.
This comment was written by EdgeWise.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 8:46 am
You choose to post pictures of your honorary nieces on your blog. That means you’re making their pictures available for public discussion. That means it’s fairly likely (as the world goes) that some pedophile probably has yanked those pics and is wanking over them. So you are willing to continue posting the pics, but unwilling to consider the fact that this makes them publicly available for everything from porn for pedophiles to feminist discussion on why you are willing to make pics of your honorary nieces so available?
What a strange concept. I’ve never heard people criticised (wrt pedophiles) for allowing their children to be photographed for magazines or newspapers or television. Yet those media can be used by pedophiles just as easily. This strikes me as strangely close to the arguments that are commonly used against women wrt rape - that is that we should hide our children away from all public view as women would be safe from rape if they hid themselves from public view.
All of which is besides the point that if Sydney & Maddox were Sigfried & Martin that Amp would have posted pics of his honorary nephews. Unfortunately for Amp, Kim(bv!) & Matt have chosen to only produce honorary nieces. And beside the point of, if nobody had told you her name or gender, would you be able to tell that Sydney is a little girl? I wouldn’t be able to do so.
Personally, I find it disturbing that several folks on that thread found photos of a naked or diapered infant or toddler to be sexual in nature. But that’s just me. I also find it disturbing that several folks on that thread wonder whether the honorary nieces parents gave permission for those photos to be posted. Hello? The parents are commenting in the threads generated by the photos. Those are clearly people who haven’t read Alas.
Look, if people hate Amp, Amp’s views, Amp’s blog, etc., that’s fine. But why should he be expected to allow them to air their insults on his blog? In large part it seems to me like a tactic to make Alas disappear (a stated wish on the part of several of his critics). And I don’t give a fuck what people who want to see this blog go away think about what Amp decides to post here or how he decides to moderate. If you don’t see the value of Alas, a blog to feminist issues, that’s your loss.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 8:54 am
Jake: Personally, I find it disturbing that several folks on that thread found photos of a naked or diapered infant or toddler to be sexual in nature.
This would appear again to be a twisted misreading of the thread linked to - even more disturbingly twisted than Amp’s misreading.
But why should he be expected to allow them to air their insults on his blog?
That isn’t what happened. According to Amp’s own account, he’s objecting to them discussing photos he published on his blog, in a separate blog, and is banning them for what they said elsewhere. This is his right: it’s his blog. But if he’s going to make a point of banning people for what they say when they’re not on his blog, why is it that the first people he does it to are a bunch of feminists discussing the issue of making publicly available photographs of his nieces?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 9:05 am
Not to mention that, just playing the numbers game, there are hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of pictures of cute babies all over the entire damn internet. 44,000 google image hits for “cute baby” and over 3 million for “baby.” That means it’s fairly unlikely (as the world goes) that some pedophile has had anything at all to do with these pictures. The baby-picture-to-pedophile ratio just seems too large.
Anyway, if Amp’s okay with it, and the kids parents are okay with it, I’m not sure where the problem is.
I couldn’t agree more. I’d also like to say that in the end this is Amp’s choice. I consider myself a guest in his home, with all that that implies in terms of respect and consideration for him.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 9:08 am
I’d want the threads to be for women only by the traditional definition, meaning women born female, mostly because our experiences under male supremacy are unique and distinctive, but for some other reasons as well.
I’d like to hear more about this. To my mind, a woman is a woman is (as the radical feminist notion goes) a person.
It seems odd for any kind of feminism deliberately to exclude “ex-men”, as it were: those who’ve chosen to express their feminine natures in defiance of enormous social pressure against their doing so, and in the process very deliberately turned their backs on male privilege.
This comment was written by sennoma.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 9:09 am
“In large part it seems to me like a tactic to make Alas disappear (a stated wish on the part of several of his critics)”
Speaking as one of his critics I don’t want Alas to disappear, Ampersand has just as much right to blog as anyone else, I would however like Ampersand to stop giving a platform to anti-feminists whilst treating feminists poorly, or, if he’s not going to do that, stop promoting his blog as “feminist-friendly” or himself as a feminist.
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 9:15 am
But if he’s going to make a point of banning people for what they say when they’re not on his blog, why is it that the first people he does it to are a bunch of feminists discussing the issue of making publicly available photographs of his nieces?
That’s a good point. I would guess that past history might have something to do with it, but that is only a guess.
This would appear again to be a twisted misreading of the thread linked to - even more disturbingly twisted than Amp’s misreading.
That is certainly possible. I’m no less prone to misreading than anybody else. Yet, comments like:
…I think it is irresponsible of him to post photos of her at all on it, let alone mostly naked.
certainly suggest, at least to me, a belief by the commenter that a sexual element is added to the photo by the lack of clothing. But if the majority of people think that I’ve misinterpreted, I’m willing to concede the mistake on my part.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 9:20 am
Ampersand’s patience never ceases to astonish me. Some of the comments on this thread are insulting to Amp in the extreme.
So far as I can tell, the “feminists” who were banned, at least the recent bannings, were banned because they were bullies who called other posters ugly names, not because they were feminists, radical or otherwise. In every political movement there is a certain party who feels that because of the overwhelming righteousness of the Cause (whatever the Cause in this case may be) the proponents are excused from civilized behavior.
Amp doesn’t agree. I don’t either, as it happens.
As for ugly personal attacks on the owner of a blog, whether in public or in private, whyever should Ampersand, or any other blogger, give net space to people who attack his character? Like being here at Alas is some kind of Constitutional Right? Come on, you guys.
Even if our host is extraordinarily forgiving, that doesn’t give us license to behave otherwise.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 9:29 am
Well, I guess Alas is not in my list of favorite blogs anymore.
This comment was written by Audrey H..Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 9:32 am
I tend to favor a slightly more charitable reading of that myself, Jake.
It’s mystifying to me that someone would consider a naked baby unusual in any way ( I mean, in my home, when there are babies, they dash about naked-with-poop-catching-devices attached 90% of the time, and seem happiest that way), but in keeping with the spirit of Amp’s goal for respectful discussion, the poster may not have considered baby nakedness weird or unusual at all, but may have just been saying that there are people out there who are aroused by such things, and that I agree with, even if I don’t think that they offer a realistic threat in this scenario.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 9:32 am
littleviolet: or, if he’s not going to do that, stop promoting his blog as “feminist-friendly” or himself as a feminist.
Yes.
Susan: So far as I can tell, the “feminists” who were banned, at least the recent bannings, were banned because they were bullies who called other posters ugly names, not because they were feminists, radical or otherwise.
So far as I can tell, the feminists who were banned recently were banned because their comments elsewhere made Amp feel uncomfortable. Which indicates that anti-feminists who are still more foul-mouthed elsewhere don’t make Amp uncomfortable.
I hang out here for much the same reason as I hang out on Family Scholars Blog: the abundance of anti-feminist targets. I would be just as annoyed if Family Scholars Blog started trying to promote itself as “LGBT friendly” as I am if Amp tries to promote Alas a Blog as “feminist friendly”.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 9:53 am
Jesurgislac: die Analogie ist schwach: Streitigkeit, sogar tief gehende Uneinigkeit, is kein andere Sprache.
Ausserdem, Amp hat gesagt: Gewinde hier soll meistens in “Englisch” sein. Leute, die nur “Deutsch” schreiben wollen, muessen in die Gewinde bleiben, die mit “MRA” usw. bemerkt sind.
This comment was written by sennoma.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 9:59 am
Wait, Jesurgislac: you needn’t answer me. In any language. After your last few comments, I really don’t think you’re participating here in good faith.
This comment was written by sennoma.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:00 am
I can only re-emphasize my comment about Ampersand’s remarkable patience.
I was personally called an ugly name, in public, by one of the banned persons, for no better reason than that we disagreed about something. I don’t know if that’s why she was banned or not. But this site is more “woman-friendly”, at least to this woman, without that kind of behavior.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:02 am
Someone who openly declares that she’s only here to attack other posters certainly qualifies for this judgment. Unless one has a most extraordinary definition of “good faith.”
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:10 am
Speaking as one of his critics I don’t want Alas to disappear, Ampersand has just as much right to blog as anyone else, I would however like Ampersand to stop giving a platform to anti-feminists whilst treating feminists poorly, or, if he’s not going to do that, stop promoting his blog as “feminist-friendly” or himself as a feminist.
Fair enough. Amp believes, and I agree, that there is a need for a place for interaction between feminists & anti-feminists. Lately, though, that has led to a lot of virtual ink being wasted here on the same old crap as well as diversions from interesting and serious subject. Thus, I suspect, the new moderation guidelines.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:20 am
Jesu:
Well, I don’t put Ginmar in this category. I wouldn’t put, you, Jesu, in that category either. However, if last spring’s uproar about “civilized” behavior of feminists is any indication, in some cases, there are feminists in blog-land who really didn’t give two shits and a fuck about the well-being of feminists on this blog. They simply appeared magically at a moment in which other feminists, who were regulars in this space, were unhappy with Amp’s behavior. The women who suddenly “pinged” into the discussions at that point probably didn’t give two shits and a fuck about me or any other regular who often finds it rough going here because of Amp’s policy. They simply appear because they have old scores to settle with Amp that are left over from other spaces, and they use women like me as a vehicle to get back at him.
I don’t shed any tears when women like that get the boot, because I don’t appreciate having my dissent used as a weapon to settle a bullshit personal score.
That being said, Amp: That’s one of the reasons that I don’t think it was fair of you to give Ginmar the boot. I have always found her to be very sincere here in her concerns for women. She may be a loudmouth, but I don’t think that she’s a user and I don’t think that she means you personal harm. I urge you to reconsider.
Jake Squid wrote:
No kidding. People can whack off to anything. Target swimsuit circulars, footage of paramedics cutting off a female accident victim’s shirt, some LOTR actress in a white gown, etc. Hell, I could post a picture of myself covered head-to-foot in a Dalek costume and within half an hour, someone somewhere would probably be whacking off to it. :p Seems like poor criteria for deciding what should and should not be posted to the blog.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:22 am
I don’t think he has ever treated feminists poorly.
You see, there are many different shades of grey in the feminist world. I don’t think anyone could in their right mind say that this is NOT a feminist-friendly blog. As Susan pointed out, there are feminists who call themselves feminists but may not be regarded as “true” feminists by other feminists.
Unless, of course, if being “feminist-friendly” means “espousing only the ideas I agree with and never letting people who disagree with these ideas ever set foot on this blog”.
It that’s what this blog is going to become, well… I’m outta here.
This comment was written by Audrey H..Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:34 am
I’m confused. I thought that Ginmar left on her own, because she wasn’t fond of the moderation rules. It’s possible I just missed something, but if she was banned, it totally went over my head.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:42 am
Ginmar wasn’t banned. She apparently decided to stop commenting rather than sign on to the moderation guidelines that were discussed recently.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:43 am
I would say that Alas may serve an important purpose as a jumping-off point for fledgling feminists. Everyone’s got to start somewhere; someone (like me) who is just coming to realize the extent to which sexism and male privilege dominate her (or his!) world, but not sure of all the implications or history, would find here a lot of good information in the posts, some differing viewpoints in the comments, and an array of links to other blogs. A skeptic, who is truly interested in listening to what supported an opposing viewpoint, would find good information here as well. And that initial spark of interest may well lead a person to a radical feminist ideology, who might not otherwise have been exposed to its ideas.
In response to Cheryl/Heart’s definition of radical feminism -
I definitely agree with that, except for the assertation that “all other oppressions are modeled after sexism.” Is this word a male supremacist world? Hell yes. And now that I’m better at knowing what to look for, I see the implications in everything, from the cartoons aimed at little kids to the atmosphere in my workplace. And it makes me angry, and sad, and frustrated. But I am not convinced that oppression, in all its forms, is modeled after oppression on the basis of gender.
I think it would be great to have the voices of radical feminism represented here, in the form of guest bloggers, perhaps, but I’m wary of moderating comments much more than is already provided for in the policy already outlined. I also believe there is a need for a place where feminists and anti-feminists can have a dialogue, and that seems to be what this blog has been intended for. It’s not perfect, but all things considered, I think Amp does a good job.
And as far as I can tell, he’s a feminist. I’d certainly rather see a lot more men like him, who make an effort and do something, than more men who ignore their privilege, figure men and women are pretty much equal already, and then expect a prize for not raping you.
This comment was written by Rebecca E.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:43 am
Okay, never mind then. I thought that she had been kicked off.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:44 am
Ditto.
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:47 am
What alsis said, especially in respect to the oh-so-opportune posting/blogging of feminists that seldom post here.
WRT: Ginmar.
Amp this sucks giant donkey balls and you know it. It is cowardly and I can’t help but think that you have been swayed by the MRA, especially the SYG crowd. I know you say you haven’t, but the evidence is a little too coincidental. I’m not sure that you need to have double standards for behavior, but there are and were other options other than banning. Ginmar’s is an important voice — albeit most unpopular with those who only wish to get their big toes mildly damp in the pool of feminist theory. Or with misogynists.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:48 am
This is like a bad joke. I like ginmar, even though she is often rude. I don’t like misogynist men or MRA’s, though I think there are some rights even men should have more of.
But this debate is as close to pointless as I think debates about organization and feminism can be, though those are two issues I care very much about. Space on the web is so cheap as to be practically free, Heart, and Ginmar, at least, have thier own websites! So mere infrastructure cannot be the problem.
Maybe the point is to democratize the blogosphere? In which case, this is still a quixotic effort. Alas is a little blog compared to the actually big ones run by really misogynist liberal men. How ’bout they give ‘us’ our own threads instead
Maybe the point is to show off adherence to thoretically driven doctrinare positions which have remained unchanged for more than twenty years?
MM. the total lack of absence of discussion of what it might mean to have a womyn only space for radical feminist discussion THAT EVERYONE ELSE CAN READ suggests my final hypothesis is the correct one.
Also, because
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:51 am
Just to clarify: where/when did Amp ban Ginmar (block her IP, ask her to leave and never return)? I can’t find it, but lots of people are referring to a ban.
This comment was written by sennoma.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Oops, answered while I was typing. All the fuss over “banning Ginmar” evaporates, no, in light of the fact that she was never banned?
This comment was written by sennoma.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:00 am
>>That being said, Amp: That’s one of the reasons that I don’t think it was fair of you to give Ginmar the boot. I have always found her to be very sincere here in her concerns for women. She may be a loudmouth, but I don’t think that she’s a user and I don’t think that she means you personal harm. I urge you to reconsider.>>
I said I wouldn’t participate here, but since the thread has moved so far from the original topic, I’ll just drop in to say:
Second.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:02 am
Whoops. I should have just stayed out altogether, no?
I’ll just say that I’d like very much if ginmar came back, although I understand her reasons for not doing so.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:03 am
Heart alludes to Ginmar being banned over at The Margins (and having had her posts deleted). I’m not sure if this is true or not. Amp, can you clarify what’s going on?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:12 am
While obviously sometimes posters do attempt to “derail” a topic by deliberately posting something inflammatory, the term is often used the way you suggest - as an excuse to ignore dissenting opinions. This happens a lot with communities or philosophies that rely on a sort of “echo chamber” quality to survive. It is important that they build their concepts in a space free from challenges or reality checks. It is especially true for communities based on a shared feeling of victim hood.
Of course not all places that restrict trolls or attempt to stay deliberately on topic are echo chambers. It is a hard line to see and a judgment that can only be made by the reader. Certainly not ____ only or ____ friendly spaces are “echo chambers”. In the end it may be only a distinction of intent.
That all being said, I still support the rights of those who own a space to control it.
There is simply no way that I can see for anyone to question Amps commitment to feminist ideals. Possibly not the more radical feminist concepts… but certainly here is a blog devoted to feminism. If refusing to tolerate bullies and abusive behavior from “name brand” feminists is somehow now part of a litmus test then I think Amp should be proud to fail it.
This is of course the problem… when presenting a dissenting concept is considered a inherently trolling or “anti” activity then many people will feel it is justified to respond with abusive or vicious language and attitude. They cannot separate the concepts of a differing idea and a personal attack because to them the very reality that someone might hold a differing view is an attack in and of itself.
It is this I think that leads to the idea that if you allow “anti-feminist” ideas then you must also allow “pro-feminist” bullies. That somehow the very act of holding a different view or opinion is an attack and thus justifies any sort of response.
One note to Amp. This is your space, most importantly this place needs to be “Amp friendly” and “Amp safe”. Don’t feel pressured to delegate control of any of it to your critics in an attempt to appease or placate them.
This comment was written by Soulhuntre.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:16 am
I was personally called, on this blog, by ginmar, recently, and I quote, an “anti-feminst jerkwad”.
And we’re defending this behavior? And that would be why again? And that squares with treating other commenters with respect exactly how?
curiousgrl says,
I don’t. And curious, after you’re called an “anti-feminist jerkwad” or the equivalent because you don’t agree with every single one of ginmar’s opinions, you might be less charmed.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:18 am
To which I can only say, Amen.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:23 am
I’ve enjoyed my time here on Alas. I think I’ve gotten more education on feminisim in practice in the year I’ve been lurking and reading here than in my entire college experience. I do identify as a feminist, and understand many rad feminist ideological points. Though I disagree with certain points as well.
I’ve found that the point -counterpoint dialogue offered in comments here to be enlightening. However, I’ve only recently started commenting becuase of several “strident” voices that left me feeling intimidated when it came to asking questions that might be considered “stupid” or “derailing”.
So, I think the moderation policy is a good one. And I would hate to see Amp close Alas, as I for one, have learned a good deal here.
As posted up-thread, there already exists women only and radical feminist only protected space for discussion, and in practice I wouldn’t be adverse to certain threads being “rad feminst” only or “women” only. I would hate for the entire point-counterpoint discourse to be lost, being that I continue to learn from comparing ideologies and veiwpoints.
Anyway, thanks Amp for providing a starting place for a deepening of my understanding of feminism and radical feminism in particular.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Soulhuntre says
A most precise analysis, Soulhuntre.
Maybe some of it is education. I don’t mean just stacking up letters after one’s name; I allude to something more subtle.
We took our youngest, almost four years ago, to “family day” for her freshman year at a very exclusive (not to mention expensive!!!) liberal arts college. The Dean stood up before the assembled parents and students, and stated that the college’s goal was to produce people who could -
1. Listen to and understand a position - on whatever topic - which differed from their own, and
2. Respect the person holding that position, and argue against the position, if necessary, while showing that respect.
I’m out in the beautiful sunshine, the lovely lawns, and I’m thinking, “Hm. Tall order, Doctor. Good luck, by the way, with my kid, who is quite headstrong.”
She’s a senior now. Did they succeed? Partly, I’d say. Better than I would have predicted.
Can I myself do this? I’m working on it. At least I do hold it to be an ideal.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Oh, I despair.
“People who don’t like Amp’s policy can just go start their OWN blogs, then!” Well, great. So I guess I’ll just post annoying blogwhore comments in every thread that interests me here, eh? “Hay guys visit my blog to talk about this topic for reals!” What happens when I want to hear the SPECIFIC opinions of posters here, smart, together feminists who I’ve read for the ~2 years that I’ve been visiting Alas, people like Qgrrl, bean, and alsis? Must I still sit through repulsive misogyny, must I still tolerate the constant reinvention of the wheel that goes on here? I want to hear intelligent opinions of where feminism is today and what it can say and accomplish. I DON’T want to hear more arguments about how yes, men really DO have privilege. And the tone on this blog is more one that is concerned that every one get their chance to speak up–and the end result of that, of course, is that only two people get their chance to speak up: the anti-feminists, and the feminists who somehow retain the patience to keep explaining the basic tenets over and over. There’s precious little debate over specifics of feminist theory or doctrine. There’s only a group of frustrated feminists shouting over and over “FEMINISM IS GOOD FOR YOU, GODDAMMIT”–and then getting ignored, belittled, berated. By the anti-feminists. By people who want to claim that FEMINISM CAUSES CHILD ABUSE, I mean, SERIOUSLY, what the christ is that about?
I don’t have any problem with feminist-only, woman-only space on this, probably the most popular “pro-feminist” blog around, although of course it’s not my call. I stand by what I mentioned in earlier threads about my inability to have a real feminist CONVERSATION with a man–that’s CONVERSATION, as in BOTH PARTIES PARTICIPATE INTELLIGENTLY, not just “I talk, he talks over me” or “I lecture, he listens.” So yes, woman-0nly space. Why not?
However, I’m positive that that won’t happen, and so I, like other readers, will probably just drift away from here. Yeah yeah alternative perspectives are important blah. Know what? I don’t need ‘em. I know what the alternative perspectives are. I grew up in the South and attended a conservative Catholic university and am currently in law school for god’s sakes, believe the shit out of me, I KNOW WHAT ANTI-FEMINISM IS LIKE. For once–ONCE–I’d like to have a nice feminist party with these smart people. Is that even possible?
This comment was written by Mary.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:30 am
A most important observation.
This is to be a “safe” space for whom? Only for the bullies?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:35 am
Just to clear up the “was Ginmar banned” issue, Ginmar herself said ( over at the link Jesurgislac posted), in reference to Amp’s civility policy:
If there is someone claiming that Ginmar was banned, that statement runs counter to her own claims.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:36 am
I’m sure you do Mary. But you’re not the only one here who does, and it may surprise you to learn that some of us don’t agree with you on every particular. Too bad you didn’t sit next to me in law school in 1973.
I’ve had quite a lot of conversations with men, feminist and otherwise. No one talks over me (you jest perhaps), and I don’t just lecture, I like to think that I know how to listen too. I’m guessing, hearing about your training, that you have these abilities too. But hitting the ALL CAPS button may not be helpful in the long run.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:37 am
Thank you, Myca.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:44 am
Changing the subject slightly, after reading oodles of today’s comments.
Do you know what might be useful? Having a dedicated thread for commenters to introduce themselves. Like a welcome mat.
Some people have blog links by their names which I can follow to find out more about them, but most folks here I only know based on what they write in the threads I happen to be reading. It’s particularly difficult when encountering people who only post intermittently.
Over on margins, Cheryl says she was insulted by suggestions that she could start her own blog. To paraphrase, she seemed to find it condescending given her (quite impressive) publishing experience. (link)
Well, I never knew any of that about her. She was a blank slate to me before this thread.
And maybe it would help if we had a central page where we can check to learn a little more about one another. Which nongendered-pseudonyms are males and which are females; who attended marches on Washington in the 1970s and who’s fresh out of college, and so on…
I’ve long been a fan of the notion that “on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog” and letting ideas speak for themselves. But given the current conflicts, something like this might help ease the tensions by letting us see a slightly fuller picture of the people we’re talking to.
[Also, if people introduced themselves with a bit of history of how they got involved with feminism, it might cut down on the credentials-challenging I've seen in recent threads.]
Just tossing the idea into the ring for your consideration…
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:51 am
I would hardly call myself a radical feminist, but I’m fed up with the hypocrisy I’m seeing in this thread, from Amp and some of his defenders. Spaces in which the appearance of civility is held to be more important than actually being civilized are not places I wish to spend time in. It’s been interesting, but I think I’m done.
This comment was written by Medium Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Lis, a very interesting suggestion!
Of course some people will lie their heads off, but I would think that would be a very small minority here.
Cheryl’s alleged sense of insult is a mystery to me, even so. If she doesn’t like the way Amp proposes to run Alas, then….she should start her own blog. Or in her case, go back to her own blog. But your point - that if we didn’t know about her experience, we could make inappropriate suggestions - is well taken. (Why anyone would be insulted because we are not all psychics is beyond me, and the topic for another discussion.)
However. There are or have been here certain people who don’t give a flying fart what the other poster’s experience is, if he/she disagrees with the Omniscient Self he/she is a bad person. But I wouldn’t think this was anything but a very small minority. A procedure such as you suggest might even flush such persons out of the weeds.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:56 am
The door is over there.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 11:57 am
That sounds so cool! I’d love to know what school that was.
Rereading your earlier comments in this post, there are some things I’d love to take to email if you could send me your address…
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
I don’t have a lot of time to comment right now, and I have to go out and won’t have internet access for hours, so forgive my unresponsiveness.
To answer people’s question, Ginmar was banned from “Alas” on the 24th, because of her continued rudeness and bullying, after she chose to ignore a bunch of warnings (the last of which was “Ginmar, if you can’t see clear to respecting the new rules here - which means treating… other posters here with respect - then please stop posting on “Alas.””).
At the same time, Ginmar was announcing that she had decided not to post on “Alas” anymore. I wasn’t sure if that meant that she didn’t realize she had been banned, or that she wanted to say she quit, and I didn’t feel up to an email exchange with Ginmar to find out which was which, so I didn’t say anything further other than asking people here to stop discussing Ginmar. A few days later Ginmar started trying to post here again, so I emailed her to make sure she knew she was banned.
Jesu wrote:
I also wrote, later on this thread:
I guess you missed that part. I really wasn’t trying to be deceptive, which is why I posted the update later; but I can certainly see how it could appear otherwise, and I apologize for giving the wrong impression.
You also claimed (or at least implied) that I had banned those folks for what they wrote on that livejournal. That’s also not true; Funnie was banned ages before that board existed, and Ginmar was banned for her posting here on “Alas.” I don’t know if I’ve banned the other folks or not, but if I have, they were banned before that livejournal existed.
The only person I’ve banned for what they wrote elsewhere was an MRA named “Mr. Bad,” who I banned despite his polite post here on “Alas” because of something he wrote on Stand Your Ground.
[Edited to make the sequence of events clearer.]
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
All are welcome here. Love to talk to ya, Lis! And everyone else too.
sefoley@foleyfoleylaw.com
(The college is Pomona College, Claremont, California. They have their goals correctly stated at least.)
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
Have you seen/tried the Gender Genie which purports to do just that algorithmically?
Of course, it invariably thinks my writings (blog posts, nonfiction and fiction) were authored by a male, so it’s not terribly accurate, but they’re trying…
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
Oh. Well, never mind, then. (That’ll teach me to butt in.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Susan: what do you gain by gatekeeping?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Susan, I would like to pint out that this isn’t your blog, so it is not your role to tell people to leave, directly or indirectly.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
“gatekeeping” means what exactly, Q Grrl? I’m not following your reference.
Since you, by your own declaration, are “the only radical feminist posting here,” I’m sure a number of people will be most interested in your position. Especially the other posters who think, surely in error, that they too are “radical feminists.” (I do not count myself in their number.)
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
Krisjan, the guy said he was leaving, and flung a bunch of insults at the rest of us into the bargain.
Besides, who are you to be telling me what to say? Isn’t that Amp’s job?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Oh, that’s amusing.
Just out of curiousity, I tried Gender Genie on Cheryl’s post above, Ginmar’s most recent public posts in her journal (these 2).
It identified all of them as male. :)
I’m not trying to make any kind of statement with this, I just find it amusing.
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
I’ll go check it out, Lis.
But… why would anyone want to know the gender of the author of any particular piece? They aren’t interested in the content maybe?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Regarding the rest of the discussion, I find it hard to understand some of the criticism. When I look at the blog and the posts therin, there is no doubt that this is feminist blog, and a great learning resource. When you look at the comments, there is still a overwhelming majority of feminist posters, but there are some non-feminist posters as well. Given the dynamics of such a mixture, the non-feminist posters, and especially the anti-feminist ones, have unproportional influence of the direction of the conversation.
This is a problem, which Amp has acknowledged, and has tried to correct with the new commenting rules.
Yet before those have given a chance to show their effectiveness (or lack of same), Amp is attacked for giving too much space to the voices against feminism.
That is exactly what the new rules are ment to address.
Now, Cheryl/Heart (BTW. what name to you prefer to be addressed by?) have a different suggestion, which aims at making entire threads offlimit to non-feminist commenters - this is something Amp has said he is willing to try, as long as some basic things are in order. How about it is tried then?
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Susan: I was referring to your “the door is over there” comment. It seemed needlesly rude.
Yes, I identify my politics as radical feminsm becuase that is the theoretical tool with which I critique our society. I am also likewise an anarcho-feminist and and ecofeminist b/c these theories also allow me critical insight into how our society works and more specifically how it treats women. I’m not quite sure what you were trying to say in your post to me. I think it is clear that I don’t consider others less-than because thier feminism isn’t the same as mine. I don’t wear “radical feminist” as some sort of badge with which to prove feminist credentials — like I said above, it is a theoretical tool.
You are currently appearing to pull cheap shots in this thread. Is this your intention?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
He hasn’t displayed any interest in standing up for women when it really matters, what he has done is ban women or dismiss their feminist criticisms of his actions.
What’s so great about this space anyway? Ampersand treats feminists and anti-feminists as if our positions had moral equivalence.
um, wow! I’ve been reading here for several years and appear to have missed both a series of firestorms and a great deal of ridiculous misogyny from Amp. Or rather, I may have missed the former but I sure as hell have never seen evidence of the latter. Making space for those who might otherwise disrupt ongoing conversations seems like a peacemaker’s way to try to avoid banning the pesky gents, allowing for th e possibility that some antifeminists might actually see the light some day (and indeed, I have seem some genuine encounters here). Otherwise, I think it’s been pretty clear that that antifeminists give Amp the bends and provoke some of his most impassioned counterarguments, not to mention have elicited his recent decision to wall them out of some areas of discussion . . .
On the other hand, I can’t imagine how the occasional moderated thread could injure anybody here. one can always read and learn, start a response discussion elsewhere, or skip the comments from that post. If there are things that can be discussed in a protected space that wouldn’t otherwise be explored, let that happen. My suspicion is that frustrated readers might let discussion leak over into “unsafe” space, giving the other posters the unpleasant choice between ignoring the arguments/attacks being made outside and moving out of moderated space to parry the most misguided points. But perhaps that could be nipped in the bud and we’d move on as two overlapping communities. There’s certainly plenty of room for discussion, both topically and spatially…
very persuasive to me was this line from Cheryl:
. The threads I envisioned would allow those of us born into male supremacy, with a specific set of life experiences based on being born to second class status, to speak freely of what it means to be girls and women, without feeling pressured internally or externally to take care of or protect the sensibilities of men … something which has always been expected of us as girls.
I can see that being able to speak brashly, in and of itself, has value, even if one would moderate those same statements in other contexts, or might only be trying them out even for oneself. That seems like a value worth making some allowances for. There’s no guarantee that Alas is the right place to make such space, or that any blog can ever really be all things to all types of users (do oppressed women really want to “heal and strategize” under even a feminist man’s umbrella?), but it might be worth a try. I leave it to Amp to say whether the result fits within his own comfort zone and sense of this blog.
just my thoughts, as ever. apologies to those that have posted during the time it took me to read and digest the first 76 replies…
This comment was written by acm.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Yeah, me too. I was going off the information I had available, but it led me to an erroneous conclusion. Thanks for the clarification, Amp.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
My gender “genie” skills are not worth a dime. I usually assume that any undeclared poster on this blog who isn’t blatantly anti-feminist from the get-go is female. Which probably says a lot about how a steady barrage of anti-feminist male claptrap will tend to lower a woman’s expectations over time, but never mind.
Q wrote:
I’m sticking with “apostate feminist” until I think up something better. :D Although the thought of starting a blog called “Unlettered Radical Feminists” is tempting.
http://www.suefoley.com/
Susan has the same name as one of my very favorite Blues guitarists. I think that I need to go lie down. :/
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Q, I’m not sophisticated enough to sort out all the intricate classifications of “feminist” to which you refer. I’m just quoting back to you what you yourself said, to wit, that you are the only “radical feminist” posting here.
This may very well be true. I’m certainly not the person to judge this, since I only barely know what you’re talking about.
I don’t intend “cheap shots.” As you can probably tell if you read what I’ve posted, I don’t have a clue what “radical feminist” means to you. A number of other people here have flown this flag; for your part, you have declared that they are all frauds. How the heck would I know?
If the term is a “theoretical tool”, perhaps you could explain it to us, and on the way, explain why no one else here qualifies?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
I can’t play the guitar, in spite of numerous efforts to learn. One of my great defeats.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
I haven’t read the entire thread, so sorry if I repeat anything.
I think the limitation idea is more than reasonable - it’s absolutely necessary.
Also, I had always wished that there was a way to limit the Ms. Boards so that anyone could read, but only subscribers could post. I realize that this would be excluding those who can’t afford a subscription, but unfortunately, the alternative was taking the site down altogether. That was a truly unfortunate loss.
I miss the things you used to say on there, Heart. You were quite inspirational and you also opened my mind a lot.
I also do give credit to Amp for the blog in general. It’s a great read. Is Amp sexist sometimes? Practically all of us are sexist sometimes because we simply can’t help it (even when we try to be aware). But I respect Amp a lot. For over ten years I have read Amp’s perspective, and I have learned a great deal from him. (Note: I’m including the times where he was posting to newsgroups.) Amp: if you are ever wondering, you should know that all the time/effort you spent sharing your opinions has influenced at least one person’s life quite a bit!
But yes, this blog needs to become more “low-troll”/”reduced-troll” (or ideally, “troll-free”). For us “typical” readers, it will improve our (mental) health!
Down with trolls! No exceptions! No apologies!
Feminism: it’s too important for bullshit.
This comment was written by Barbara Preuninger.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Huh? I have not declared that anyone is a fraud — especially not in regards to radical feminism. Can you point out places where you think I have?
By theoretical tool, I mean that I use the basic tenants of radical feminism (both theory and practice) as tools by which I critique current and historical society. Again, please show me where I have said that others don’t “qualify”.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Can’t we all just get along?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:08 pm
No.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:08 pm
:)
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Robert wrote:
Only if we can get Gw*n St*f*n*’s acolytes back for another go-’round.
Susan, I’ve encountered tons of radical feminists on various boards in the last six-odd years. I’d say that Qgrrl (and bean) are extremely accessable to read in terms of explaining the real-life impact of radical feminist ideas– more so than many others. If you really can’t understand Qgrrl’s posts on this issue, perhaps your problem is with radical feminism itself, not Qgrrl’s delivery.
One reason I don’t really consider myself a radical feminist per se is because I freely admit that it doesn’t matter to me which oppression is the core oppression. Having sampled a bit from –say– Socialist feminism and Radical feminism, not to mention feminists like Rachel S., (who had a great post up there that I forgot to mention in the midst of all this) and reading how they differ, I find their similarities much more important to me. The origin of oppression is only part of the fight, and not the most important part to me. We can disagree on origins and still fight together for the present and the future. It’s never going to be like singing ’round the campfire in perfect harmony, but I can live with that.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:26 pm
Q Grrl:
December 27, 2005
(I’m not smart enough to give a better reference. Look on the Now We’ll Moderate thread.)
OK. It follows, then, that anyone else who posts here isn’t a “radical feminist” (according to you) and that therefore they are flying false colors if they claim that (which many have).
As to qualifying, see reference above.
The rest of this statement is gibberish. Please re-state in English, and in English comprehensible to educated persons who do not share your frame of reference.
Be sure to define “basic tenets of radical feminism”, and “current and historical society” along the way, and explain how the one relates to the other. Don’t forget to explain why no one else here qualifies.
I’m not being cute. Really. I can’t figure out, for the life of me, what in the heck you’re talking about.
Robert,
You may well be right. But I cannot make heads or tails of QGrrl’s arguments, such as they are, and if this is the most comprehensible form available, I’m not sure where I stand.
I don’t know whether I have a “problem” with radical feminism until I can figure out what it is.
QGrrl has clearly stated that she alone is the proponent of same on this blog. Pretty bold statement. It should be interesting to hear it defended.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Where are the other “radical feminists” here? They’re content to hear that they’re not really “radical feminists” on account of how only QGrrl qualifies?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
I am not Robert. Or the walrus. And I didn’t find Qgrrl’s statement gibberish at all. I am tickled pink, however, at the prospect of a lawyer begging a civilian to translate her words into English. It’s like seeing the sun rise in the West or something.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
Well, I’m not in favor, for the most part, of restricted topics or moderation other than booting spammers and the like.
No one has to respond to someone they feel is an idiot or is deliberately provoking them or is arguing for the sake of hearing their own fingers tapping the keyboards.
I don’t understand the anger.
One of the things I love about the blogsphere is the freedom to come go read respond as it pleases.
If people want a radical feminist threads only space, well, okay. So I either won’t be allowed to respond or I”ll have to bend my voice to certain rules if I want to respond to that thread. If my need feels great I can go ahead and respond on my own blog.
Where’s the fire?
I love Alas; I think Amp runs a great show here. Our views differ on some many issues completely, but he always seems fair and open minded and willing to listen.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Oh for the love of the baby jeebus.
What I meant was that, as far as I can tell from poster’s theoretical approaches, and from what the feminists here have said about their politics, is that I am the only one that I am aware of that uses radical feminism — the theory of which most suits my political needs. How in the hell do you get from that, that I am saying no one else qualifies. Do you even know what radical feminism is? You do understand what political theory is, right? You do understand that theory exists as a tool, right? Go Google radical feminism. Go read.
Right now you’re sounding like a 19-year-old male jerk off who would rather fuck with women then try to understand the source and goals of their feminism.
p.s. If you can’t understand me, how in the hell do you know I’m wrong?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
alsis39, one can only smile.
yeh, we talk gibberish a lot over here, but we do try to explain it. Ask me anything about what I do, and I’ll try to explain it so you can understand it. Not all my clients graduated from high school even. But I explain until whoever I’m talking to really understands. That’s my job, really. I’d appreciate an explanation on this end.
A statement like “the basic tenants of radical feminism (both theory and practice)” is totally opaque to someone who has been too busy for the last 30 years in furthering the equality of women to talk politics.
I’m ready to learn, however, if someone could take the trouble to talk English. This phrase above could mean anything or nothing or whatever. And as to why QGrrl is the only proponent of all this here at this blog, well, what can I say. She may well be, so far as I can tell, since I can’t figure out what exactly she’s talking about.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
Only “Radical Feminist Woman” Need Apply
One of my favorite feminist blogs, Alas, a Blog, is mulling over having “radical feminist woman only” threads. I am not a fan of the proposal on several grounds. First of all, it strikes me as needlessly exclusionary. Flame wars are frustrating–havi…
This comment was written by The Debate Link.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
Susan,
Please provide a reference to somebody other than QGrrl referring to themself as a Radical Feminist. Without that, QGrrl’s comment is meaningless in the context of your allegation.
Now in simple English:
Show us where somebody not named QGrrl who comments here regularly claims to be a Radical Feminist. If you can’t, your argument fails.
Now in simpler English:
Who else says they are a Radical Feminist?
Susan:
Be sure to define “basic tenets of radical feminism”
May I suggest that you go to Google and search on “radical feminism definition”? You may find the answer there.
Be sure to define … “current and historical society”…
Are you serious? Okay, let’s assume that you’re not being disengenuous… “Current Society” is the society in which we live today. “Historical Society” would be what society (or culture, if you prefer) was in the past. The “past,” is any point in time earlier than right now, although in the context of “Historical Society” you would probably be looking back farther than a second or a day.
Honestly, I shouldn’t even be responding to you as you take umbrage when anybody doesn’t agree with your orthodoxy. That is, when somebody disagrees with the orthodoxy that you espouse you immediately accuse them of disregarding your personal experience no matter how often & how patiently & how simply it is explained to you that that is not the case. I guess that is just your way of disregarding things that don’t conform to your opinions. Oh, well.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:40 pm
Heart
Yes Heart, I think she said that too. The point is that she makes such ostracization an absolute condition for being a “genuine male feminist” as opposed to merely “faking it” as a “male pseudo-feminist”. “Faking it” would entail claiming to be a feminist without, for example, rejecting or being rejected by a good number of one’s friends (”you’ll lose friends…In fact, you should abandon friends who won’t listen to you”) abandoning male privilege (for someone like Ginmar or, indeed, for someone like you, Heart, that might mean a man foreswearing his job in many cases, or the popular blog that his male privilege helped him to), being constantly on the lookout for every implied slight against women and being determined to make of each one a very big issue indeed (”Your job will be just like our job: the slow and relentless refusal to let anything pass by, no matter how subtle or sly, that encapsulates hatred of women”). In other words: the vast majority of men identifying themselves as feminists, and indeed identified as feminists by the women they know, would not count as “genuine male feminists”; to be one in G’s eyes (as in yours, Heart) they would, indeed, have to be outcasts.
That is untrue ““ Ginmar was banned from these threads for reasons quite unconnected with my (accurate) précis of what she wrote in her blog. If her inability to refrain from personal invective hadn’t already resulted in her being banned from this site she would have been able make her objections here. She has already done so on her own blog, however, where she refers to my interpretation of her opinions as something “this asshole pulled out of his ass”. There’s this to say for Ginmar: she’s an impressive stylist ““ here we see her avoiding the “elegant variation” trap.
According to you, then, my crime is to have attributed to Ginmar opinions which you hold yourself. A proper inspection of what she wrote on her blog shows that she does in fact hold them, but no matter: should she really find having your opinions attributed to her such a tragedy?
Once more: I don’t want anyone to take my word on this. Anybody interested should check out G’s blog.
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
You know what, on my second read through, this is complete bullshit:
Complete bullshit. Your reading comprehension is abysmal, and your reasoning that of a petulant child. You’re also looking to stir up shit where there was none before.
Radical feminism is a series of beliefs, not something you qualify for. You either believe the theory or you don’t or some of it, whatever. You’re what, almost 60 years old? And you can’t figure this much out. Shame on you. Shame on your gated community mindset. Now get off my fucking back.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
I am not Robert. Or the walrus.
Sure you are! Doncha watch South Park? All life is one life…we are all the poo of the antelope, falling to the ground…
Sorry to be facetious. It’s getting a little train-ride-to-the-camps-serious around here.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Q Grrl,
So far as I can tell, and I’m far from sure about this, this statement translates into “I am the only poster here who uses radical feminism in a way which most suits my political needs.”
Hard to argue with that, since only you know what your political needs may be.
Because… because you just said that? Because you just said that “I am the only one that I am aware of that uses radical feminism … the theory of which most suits my political needs” ??
Well, yes, in general, I do. Marxism, Capitalism, Fascism, I’ve studied them, and I know, in general what “political theory” is in general. In fact, I hold a graduate degree in History, which I certainly could not have gotten without a basic understanding of what political theory is in general.
Well, no, I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t. I’m hoping you would explain it to me. So far you’ve said that it “suits your political needs,” but that doesn’t help much.
Yes, some kinds of persons do feel the need to insult their adversaries personally when argument fails. However, I would suggest that you check out who I really am from the email posted above. The California Bar Association will vouch for my gender and my age.
I haven’t said that you were wrong, for this very reason. For the life of me I can’t figure out what you’re saying.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Sorry Robert, but I didn’t get that one -can you rephrase?
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Good. So now you’ll leave me alone?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
hey, I’m good. If no one else here claims to be a “radical feminist” (and I certainly don’t make that claim) then QGrrl stands unchallenged. Certainly by me.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
No one is forcing you to post Q. Go in peace.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
No one is forcing you to post Q. Go in peace.
Fuck you.
Don’t you fucking try to drive off when of the most knowledgeable eloquent commenters on Alas. You, Susan, are an example of faux civility at its most annoying. You are dishonest, intentionally obtuse, rigid and insulting to all who have views different from you fanatically gripped orthodoxy. No one is forcing you to post. No one is even asking you to post here. Go away.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Hmmm. I guess I need to learn how to do fakey HTML. That first line of mine was supposed to be bracketed by “lack of civility”. Oh well, my imperfections continue.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism
Knock yourself out, Susan. If you’re serious about learning something, and not just about harrassing Q or goading her into saying something that gets her booted off Alas.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
Susan, I rather think you should back up your claim that others here have called themselves radical feminists. You’ve made that explicit claim at least twice in this thread, once in comment #136 and once in #143. Without evidence to support that claim, your inference that Q Grrl is arrogating some kind of status or privilege to herself.
This comment was written by sennoma.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
I did. I found a lot of answers, many of them inconsistent with other alleged answers. But I wasn’t surprised at the inconsistencies. You’d get the same if you googled any similar concept.
I’m far more interested in what definitions may be supplied by my colleagues here. So far all I’ve heard is that I’m
1. dumb, and/or
2. a 19 year old boy.
You’ll excuse me perhaps if I find that less than satisfactory as an intellectual definition of a concept.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Yeah, Jake Squid. I’m glad I’m not the only one who picked up on Susan’s game-playing. It’s pretty obvious at this point, isn’t it…
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
I give up readily, sennoma. No one here is a radical feminist, but QGrrl only.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
Tom Nolan: my (accurate) précis of what she wrote in her blog.
It was hardly an accurate précis: it was a slimy misreading and distortion, amounting to a personal attack on Ginmar. And as Ginmar is banned, you got away with it.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Erk, stupid fingers, be more carefuller.
Last sentence should be: Without evidence… becomes a pointless ad hom.
This comment was written by sennoma.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
Susan. Here’s an idea: Go to google and google “Qgrrl.” I’m guessing that many, many of her posts on specific issues will pop up instantly. That’s usually what I do when I’m trying to recall who in blog-land said what.
Qgrrl is a radical feminist.
She comments frequently upon specific issues.
Ergo, if you read her old posts on specific issues, you will be reading posts informed by Radical Feminism as Qgrrl understands it.
Easy. No ?
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Susan is so perfectly presenting the reason why one would need a feminist only thread that I’m starting to think she’s a troll of the old school, trolling for newbies that was the province of the likes of Kibo and Ted Frank.
Q, is there somewhere else I can read you if I decide here is no longer readable?
And I agree wholeheartedly with J. Squid: 159.
This comment was written by ErikaGillian.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:11 pm
I give up readily, sennoma.
You don’t, though. Roughly one-fifth of all the comments in this thread are from you.
Please: either back up your claim with evidence, or back off (and I mean properly, not that passive-aggressive “OK you’re the only radical feminist” crapola).
This comment was written by sennoma.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Robert, that’s in poor taste, particularly from a guy who has flung at least one accusation of anti-semitism on virtually no basis. (But then, I have no sense of humor. I’m a Totally Serious, Insufferable Douche.)
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
QGrrl said,
I said in response,
shit, I donno. No one, certainly not me, is pursuing QGrrl. If she doesn’t want to argue or engage, all good, who said she had to, Jake? and I’m “playing games” when I notice and repeat what she said herself?
alsis has quoted an interesting definition of “radical feminism.” I’ll need to go off and think about it. QGrrl doesn’t, by her own admission, subscribe to this definition, so it’s sort of apples and oranges here, yes? I do think alsis’ quote the more interesting, though.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Yeah, it was in poor taste; I thought that after I posted it. Alas, no editing function for comments. Sorry.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
If I were to say that I was the only anarchist posting here, would I be getting the flack? the insinuations? the twisting of words to take what I said and make something sinister out of it? I think not.
Susan: I said you were “sounding” like a 19-year old. And that your reading comprehension skills are poor. Both of which stand up under scrutiny in this thread.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
C’mon, Q. I’m now the reigning expert on Radical Feminism here. See ? I can work Wiki like a damn virtuoso. If neither you nor bean want to duel me to the death for the right to the title, won’t you at least stand me a nice cup of hot chocolate or something ?
Tsk. Sisterhood, my ass. [scowl]
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
bean,
Interesting.
Well, hm. I think that’s a complement. That I’m really smarter than I really am, and am able to make sense out of QGrrl’s posts.
I appreciate the complement, but I have to admit that it’s undeserved. I really cannot figure out what QGrrl is getting at, so I’m a lot dumber than you are assuming. Sorry. And.. bean, you’re not a “radical feminist”?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
:p
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
Damn, I haven’t read this in while, and it’s getting downright hysterical.
Susan, Jake’s right. You’ve pretty much been demonstrating (yet again) faux civility, which makes me laugh all the harder with your bemoaning the oppression we fems supposedly inflict when we call trolls out on being, well, trolls. Instead of calling someone a fuckwit, you’ve gone around in threads and tried to position yourself as a martyr whose standing up to the ‘prevailing orthodoxy.’ Something for you to remember when you start going off on people insulting those they argue with. You’ve done your own bit, albeit in a nice, civil way sans F-bombs. And now you’re inviting people to leave. Well, the same invitation extends to you, and I suggest you remember it the next time you whine about the supposed ‘prevailing orthodoxy’ or PC boogeymen, or whatever. Door’s over there, and all that.
I’d prefer a ginmar any day of the week. Her style beats the bullshit fakery couched in ‘nice’ language, put-downs (sans cussing so it’s okay dontcha know) and passive-agressive, deliberate obtuseness.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
mmm, alsis, can I have a ringside seat? Wow!
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
I donno. Depends on how many other anarchists would be around contending for the title, I guess.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Feminism really needs its own version of Boondocks for episodes like this. I volunteer to draw it if Sheelzebub will write it.
My drawing is tres rusty, but I’m guessing I could start with stick figures and work my way up from there once we got our Cartoon Network deal and our chance to flip off Eric Alterman at some Nation dinner.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Yeah, Alsis, I went and looked at the Wiki definition. It doesn’t have the teeth to it that I like, but it did throw in the word “evil.” Now, if you want to debate the existence of evil, you’re on baby.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Well, bean, others have referred to you as a radical feminist. As soon as you agree that you are you can prove that Susan is right when she accuses QGrrl of calling you a fraud. She is, of course, doing this because she can’t find an instance of a regular Alas commenter referring to herself as a radical feminist. And, fitting the lawyerly stereotype, Susan can never, ever admit that she is wrong. I’m only surprised that she hasn’t accused us of discounting her experience by asking for documentation of a self-proclaimed radical feminist regular Alas commenter not named QGrrl.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
There have been certain feminist posters on this board who have said that neither is a true feminist, and that bothers me. Why should one person be the judge of who is feminist and who isn’t?
Well, I would argue that if feminism has no actual definition, then there are no feminists.
But I suppose I am only one person. I am entitled to make judgments for myself, though.
You know, I don’t generally think of myself as a radical feminist, despite having read radfems primarily for the past year or so, and despite having immense respect for their work. But seeing how any woman who’s even vaguely woman-identified, who takes it remotely personally when women as a group are insulted and attacked, who dares to express anger at anyone other than female feminists, gets labelled a radical feminist on this blog…I guess I have to rethink that.
We took our youngest, almost four years ago, to “family day” for her freshman year at a very exclusive (not to mention expensive!!!) liberal arts college. The Dean stood up before the assembled parents and students, and stated that the college’s goal was to produce people who could -
1. Listen to and understand a position - on whatever topic - which differed from their own, and
2. Respect the person holding that position, and argue against the position, if necessary, while showing that respect.
Susan, I’m not going to get into the discussion about ginmar, but I think you yourself have fallen far short of the ideal you espouse here. (As have I, but it’s your ideal, not mine.) From sarcastically suggesting that those feminists who might want to talk to each other instead of dealing with antifeminists and woman-haters all the time just want to have “circular” discussions that amount to each of us “sitting in a room and talking to [herself],” to arguing that radical feminists want women to be unquestioning swallowers of “orthodoxy” and dislike you because you’re not one (and although you may disagree, I don’t think it is especially iconoclastic to insist that women accommodate men’s demands), to misrepresenting what you said about date rape in the other thread so as to make it sound as if the other feminists on the thread were aggressively trying to invalidate your point of view because it conflicted with feminist “orthodoxy” (that “orthodoxy,” that received doctrine, again; how do you know that’s all it is?) when in fact you yourself were trying to invalidate theirs because it conflicted with your personal experience, to your selective misreading of other people’s posts (for example, on the recent MOB thread), to offering to show radical feminists “the door” out of another person’s blog, I think you’ve been quite disrespectful and unfair yourself.
I don’t think you see ginmar’s insult to you as simply “a position which differs from your own,” worthy of your toleration and respect; why should I then be required to see a misogynist’s insult to women as a mere difference of opinion? Because he “showed respect” to me by not personally calling me a liar, a bitch, a whore? Maybe that would satisfy you, but it’s pretty cold comfort to me. And perhaps that is the real difference between you and radical feminists.
You are clearly a trailblazer in your field, and we owe you a debt for that. (My father is a 60-year-old lawyer, and I know how few women were in his graduating class.) But your independent-mindedness is not unique to you and it is unfair to tell feminists, radical or otherwise, that we are committed to an “orthodoxy” and don’t think for ourselves, that we are inventing any anti-feminist assertions you haven’t personally seen anyone make (you haven’t seen it literally argued that women rape and beat men just as much and as badly as the reverse, but I have), that we want to punish you for refusing to “take orders,” that we are overly single-minded (perhaps too single-minded not to “put down the suffering of men - or the suffering of any human being”), simply because we happen to agree in our assessment of what is happening on this blog.
And I do agree with the other women who’ve been labelled “radical feminists” here. I don’t question that Amp is entitled to do what he likes with his own webspace, but I do think the blog is quite possibly ceasing to be a productive space for any discussion that goes beyond “Feminism: Pro or Con?” And I find that disappointing.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
Hey, bean, Q, I’m just a tourist.
Clearly, I’m not a “radical feminist.” I’m not exactly sure what that is, but it’s very clear I don’t qualify. (And if what I’ve seen here is Sisterhood In Action, you can count me out anyhow.)
So, what do I know? Q says she’s the only “radical feminist” here, which puts the rest of you in rather a dull light, but as I say, I’m not a player here. I never claimed the title. I can’t even figure out what a radical feminist is, after all.
I especially like the frequent use of curse words. A sure indicator, usually, that the speaker can’t or won’t express themselves adequately in standard English. Or has something to hide. Or both.
I think alsis is on the right track. We could package and market this thread and make a bundle among us!
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
Alsis, sounds schnazzy. I think we should also write a musical. And maybe start a magazine called “Sticking it to The MAN.”
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
I especially like the frequent use of curse words. A sure indicator, usually, that the speaker can’t or won’t express themselves adequately in standard English. Or has something to hide. Or both.
Give me F-bombs over claims to martyrdom any day of the week. See: ‘prevailing orthodoxy’.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Alsis, I’ll provide the hot chocolate. I use only the best high-cacao chocolate in my hot chocolate, plus I love mini marshmallows. I also use Mexican vanilla. I have a kick-ass recipe for chocolate nut biscotti that will make the hot chocolate to die for. Only the best for my chocolate treats.
I’m also wondering what the heck is going on with the comments on this post. It was supposed to be about giving radical feminists a free space, and it has devolved into an anti-feminist showing feminist commenters the door, and other nastiness. I like Ginmar, and I’m sorry she’s been banned. I also like Barry, and I’m disappointed to see Alas devolve like this, but I’m not surprised considering the comments threads that have come about here lately.
I’m glad I don’t allow this kind of stuff on my blog. I might not have nearly the traffic Alas gets, but at least I nuke anti-feminist, mens’/fathers’ rights, and other “polite” nastiness before it has a chance to gain a foothold on my blog. I’m really sad to see the state of affairs here. I’m disappointed.
This comment was written by The Countess.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
Q says she’s the only “radical feminist” here, which puts the rest of you in rather a dull light…
Susan, you have now degenerated into meaningless attempts at expletive-free insults. If you don’t understand what a “radical feminist” is, how the fuck do you know that puts the rest of the commenters in a “dull light?” Maybe, “radical feminist” is a horrible, horrible thing, but the rest of us are too polite to say otherwise. Or, maybe, being a radical feminist is no more or less revered than being a socialist feminist? If you say don’t know what something is, don’t try to make insults based on the object of your lack of knowledge.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
This is what I said, Susan [and it strangely does support my claim that your reading comprehension skills are lacking]:
I qualified my statement in case I was in error. And I specified why I call myself a radical feminist — because it creates the basis of my politics and theory.
Can you point out for the viewers at home how I’m trying to have a pissing contest over who is or isn’t a radical feminist? Because if you can’t, mon cherie, then your whole purpose on this thread is to be devisive and derailing.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Why does it put us all in a dull light ? Not everyone thinks that radicalism is the way to go every day on every issue. Even I don’t think that, though I look very radical next to most feminists whenever it’s election time. On the cosmic scale, however it might look, I may not be radical then at all. Maybe nearly everyone else is just so conservative that anyone a little to their left looks radical.
You seem to be searching for a chance to fan the flames of rivalry where they don’t actually exist. I don’t see why. What do you gain from that ?
bean, I swear I thought that I’d heard you call yourself a Radical Feminist elsewhere. Sorry for my confusion.
I definitely say it exists, Q. Some fuckwit tried to drown an unwanted cat in an icy river the other day by locking it in a box weighed down with a big stone and throwing the box in. Fortunately their aim wasn’t for shit. I read about it on another board. Nobody knows who did it, but it’s safe to say that they’ll be coming back next time as a mouse or a cockroach. >:
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
The Countess,
I agree that lately the comment threads have devolved. That’s why I like the idea of Amps new moderation policies and why I like Heart’s suggestion of woman-only threads. But I still think that there is a place for nasty thugs like Susan here, if only to show what the arguments against feminism devolve into.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
I nearly laughed ’til I peed myself. Almost everywhere else this term is considered poison. Third wavers get hives just reading the words. :-p
I phrased what I did knowing I was going out on a limb — I just didn’t realize it would be *this* limb. Bizarre.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
I think what ou may be experiencing, Susan, is a type/degree confusion. Being the ‘only radical feminist’ in a room full of feminists isn’t putting anyone else in a dull light any more than being the only duck in a room full of birds puts the other birds in a dull light.
A duck is a type of bird. A radical feminist is a type of feminist. Ducks aren’t ‘more birdlike’ than geese or cormorants or penguins, they’re just a different sort.
“Radical feminist” isn’t a synonym for “more feminist,” it’s a different sort of feminist, so when Q claims to be the only radical feminist, I doubt she intends it as a slap at anyone else.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
I nearly laughed ’til I peed myself. Almost everywhere else this term is considered poison. Third wavers get hives just reading the words.
No kidding. Goodness, it’s lonely being twentysomething and “sex-negative”…
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Elinor,
Well, yeh, I said that. It’s an ideal we strive for, yes? Didn’t I say that I fall short? I fall short. Write it down.
No, in all frankness, I don’t. Her statement crossed over from “we disagree” into “you are a fuckwit”. A significant crossover, in my view. I can disagree with ginmar without being a “fuckwit.” As you can disagree with me without being a “moron.” Notice how that feels?
You are quite right to think for yourselves. Go for it! As I am right to think for myself. (You thinking for yourselves, and disagreeing with me, does not make me a “fuckwit.” Get over it.)
My thoughts are not better than yours; also, yours are not better than mine. You are qualified to question my assumptions; also, I am qualified to question yours. When you-all, who were not even born yet, assume to tell me what was going on in 1965, I can be skeptical perhaps. I don’t know everything, but you don’t either.
You can cite me, if you will, where I called anyone here a name for disagreeing with me. Go for it.
I’ve been villified here because I won’t take the perceptions of other people as Absolute Truth, when those perceptions differ from my own.
But, what’s it all about, girls? If we’re ready to take the perceptions of other people, men, usually, and thereby discount our own perceptions, where do we end up?? Is it suddenly OK if the people seeking to impose their perceptions on me are women? (Or, here, claim to be women?)
Sorry, girls. Call me names because I disagree with you, and by me, you’ll be treated exactly as a man who does that will be treated. I’ll hold you in contempt, because you can’t or won’t argue straight.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
If you strive to promote an atmosphere of respect, Susan, not calling a 39.5 year-old a “girl” would do for a start.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
You are quite right to think for yourselves. Go for it! As I am right to think for myself. (You thinking for yourselves, and disagreeing with me, does not make me a “fuckwit.” Get over it.)
I am not ginmar and I am not going to debate her behaviour with you. I don’t have to “get over” anything.
You can cite me, if you will, where I called anyone here a name for disagreeing with me. Go for it.
That’s a handily specific charge. It’s okay to tell us we stifle dissent, adhere to a rigid “orthodoxy,” constantly seek to invalidate you, are disturbingly single-minded, “talk politics” instead of “furthering the equality of women,” etc., etc., etc., as long as you didn’t actually call us a name.
No, you haven’t actually called anybody a name. I don’t see what that proves, though.
I’ve been villified here because I won’t take the perceptions of other people as Absolute Truth, when those perceptions differ from my own.
Tell yourself that if you like. My perception is that you haven’t been “vilified” here; you’ve been criticized because you get affronted and start complaining about “orthodoxy” and “Absolute Truth” whenever someone tries to argue with you.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
Susan:
I am Jewish. Every year around this time, someone seems to come along and ask me if I really don’t celebrate Christmas, and to want me to explain to them about this Jewish thing and what it all means vis-a-vis their holiday. Sometimes I feel like it, but mostly I don’t. Go educate yourself, I tell them, that’s not my job. I’m a white chick, and I know dang well that it is NOT someone of color’s job to educate [interested, well-meaning] white folks about what it’s liked to be a racial minority in our culture. If someone of color refers to a theory that I don’t understand, I better go learn about it, not expect them to explain it to me.
That is to say: It’s not Q’s nor anybody else here’s responsibility to define Radical Feminism for you, and it’s not your right to have it defined for you, and they are allowed to refer to it, with meaning to themselves and others, without you necessarily understanding it.
Your tone is deteriorating here. Time for a break!
This comment was written by d.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
You can cite me, if you will, where I called anyone here a name for disagreeing with me. Go for it.
Golly, you’re right Susan. I do hereby hang my head in shame for not adhering to the Victorian standards of passive-aggressive insults. I will from now on proclaim myself a martyr to feminist orthodoxy, misquote people and try to derail threads with a wide-eyed injured look of innocence when called on it, dismiss everyone else’s experience that doesn’t match mine 100% by saying that it could have been made up, what do I know (:::innocent shrug:::), tell people who don’t like it that they can leave (even though it’s not my blog), and bemoan how uncivil everyone is by calling people out on this behavior.
And it will be just fine in your world since golly, I didn’t call anyone a name or drop an F-Bomb. That would be rude.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
I’ve been villified here because I won’t take the perceptions of other people as Absolute Truth, when those perceptions differ from my own.
Pot, kettle, black.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
If there are to be any threads where only certain opinions are allowed, I shall happily lurk, read and learn and not comment. I am happy for some threads to be set aside for that purpose. (If the whole of Alas had that restriction, I would be somewhat more bothered but would probably still find it worth reading.)
I’m ambivalent about women-only threads, for various reasons. Again, if there are going to be some, fair enough; Amp’s choice. I probably shan’t post there although I am in fact female by any definition, but I am not arrogant enough to think I’ll be terribly missed.
But I’m really horrified by the concept that trans women are imposters, and their participation in women-only discussions is automatically trolling. Alas has made me much more sympathetic towards feminism than I previously was, and a large part of the reason for that is that I discovered here that there are feminists who do not spew ignorant hatred against trans people. If Alas is going to become even partially the sort of place where that kind of bigotry is acceptable, I shall have to leave. Again, I don’t expect anyone will be terribly upset if I walk, but hey. Matter of principle.
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
Individ, I am no proponent of transwars, but I am puzzled as to why anti-trans bigotry would be a deal-breaker for you–especially confined to one or two threads. Whereas men who basically post in every thread about rape that women lie, or that women sometimes rape, ergo feminism has no philosophical leg to stand on– those have not been deal-breakers ?
Do you expect more of feminists in a feminist space than you expect from anti-feminist men ? If so, why ?
Do you think that Amp advocates anti-feminism by letting anti-feminists have space here ? If not, is it fair to assume that he advocates transphobia if there is space here specifically limited only to women-born-women. If so, why ?
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
OK - this time I read the whole stinking thread!
“Susan” is:
at best: insincere/likes to hear herself talk.
at worst: a TOTAL TROLL.
Amp, I am making a sincere request to ban her. No excuses, etc.
Susan - if the “best case” scenario is true, please feel free to start your own blog and see how many people follow you so they can benefit from your deep insights about life. I certainly won’t be among them. I have not learned one thing from anything you’ve written. In all the time you have spent on this blog, all that effort has failed to bring even a glimmer of light to this world.
That’s the worst insult I can come up with right now. It will only hurt your feelings if you have a shred of sincerity.
This comment was written by Barbara Preuninger.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
I’d also like to come out in favor of radical feminist-only threads. As important as it may be to bone up on our arguing chops sometimes, it is even more important for radical feminists and other feminists to have a space in which they can articulate and discuss their ideas and finer points without distractions and derailments, and without having to spend every other post explaining their theoretical approach to someone who has already been told, but who nevertheless keeps asking for an explanation or defense of it.
For obvious reasons, I would be prohibited from commenting, and I have nothing of value to add anyway, but I think I could learn a great deal. More importantly, I think feminists could learn a great deal.
This comment was written by Dan J.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
I’m not Individ, and so my answer isn’t what hers would be, but I think the analogy is flawed.
I’m not saying that having every thread hijacked by anti-feminist posters is a good thing by any means, but I think it’s a fundamentally different beast than just not allowing transwomen to post at all in certain threads because they’re not real women. It would be a little like if Amp didn’t let women post in certain threads ‘because women are lying whores.’
As it is, Amp allows people to post the that transwomen aren’t real women, and he allows anti-feminists to post their opinions about how women lie. I think both opinions are detestable, and both are opinions I disagree with, but I do think it’s consistent.
To me, it’s the difference between allowing anti-feminist opinion on the blog and becoming an anti-feminist yourself. I believe that there’s a difference (although I understand that others do not). Similarly, right now he allows anti-trans bigotry on the blog, but is unwilling to engage in the bigotry himself.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
I’d really enjoy reading some radical feminist only threads. I think that I would really learn a lot from them; there would still be plenty of threads for non-femininists, regular feminists, and men. I really don’t see why reserving a few threads for specific purposes would be wrong.
I agree with the other posters who think that Susan derails discussions. I lurk here regularly, even though I don’t comment often. I won’t call her anti-feminist, but I think that she has a snotty attitude. Honest anger bothers me much less than snide remarks.
This comment was written by Snowe.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
(Amp, I know I said I wouldn’t comment in this thread, but I hope that it’s okay to break the promise. I discovered that I can be civil after all.)
Alsis said:
>>Individ, I am no proponent of transwars, but I am puzzled as to why anti-trans bigotry would be a deal-breaker for you”“especially confined to one or two threads. Whereas men who basically post in every thread about rape that women lie, or that women sometimes rape, ergo feminism has no philosophical leg to stand on”“ those have not been deal-breakers ?>>
I don’t think I really have the right to speak about how anti-feminist commenters may derail threads or piss feminists off. They don’t bother me much, but that’s…me. I don’t seem to be representative. I do know how transphobic comments feel, and so I think that outrage from feminist women deserves serious attention.
On a policy level, however, I argue that there’s a difference. The latter situation involves anti-feminist and feminist-baiting commenters who show up and say insidious things. Then feminists get to complain about them, explode their lies, and tell them what assholes they are. I don’t happen to agree with the constraints Amp has placed on them doing so, but they can at least object.
The _former_ situation would not merely involve anti-trans commenters, some of whom do occasionally post here and do need to be rebutted with Trans 101. It would involve establishing anti-trans space. That space would be run by someone who doesn’t believe that terms like “surgically altered male” are remotely problematic and who doesn’t think that trans inclusion and radical feminism are compatible. That space would be closed to all transpeople and most likely hostile to people who defend them.
Imagine establishing anti-feminist threads moderated by anti-feminists that no one but anti-feminists are allowed to comment in, no matter what’s being said.* It’s painful to listen to abuse, but it’s worse to have to sit quietly in one virtual room knowing that terrible things are being said on the other side of the wall.
*That’s not Amp’s proposal for the anti-feminist playpens, is it? I hope not.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
No, it is certainly not. What he has decided to do, is to limit certain subject that anti-feminists/MRAs want to talk about to certain threads. Everybody can debunk them in those threads, or alternatively choose to avoid those threads. Depending on taste.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
No, no, no, no, no. Unless I’m seriously misunderstanding the idea, feminist posters will be allowed to post in the anti-feminist threads and expose their lies.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
And again, to bring the subject back to the radical feminist only threads, or rather female feminists only threads, one of the demands that Amp had to such a thing is that transgendered women can post there, so that while men can’t post there, women born as men still can.
As someone else said, this would probably bring unique perspectives to the debate, as those people have tried both sides of the power balance.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
Yes, the limits are on the anti-feminists/MRAs, not the feminists.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.And it should probably be noted that the threads are not anti-feminist per se, it’s just possible for the anti-feminists to bring upo their tired old arguments there (which might give a general anti-feminist feel to the threads).
Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
alsis39, thanks for those thoughtful questions. Let me try to put into words why sexism is not in the same category for me as feminists being anti-trans. Sexism is obviously bad. If I see a poster making a sexist comment I think, dumb sexist and skip over it. But feminism is far from obviously bad; in fact, it is intuitively good to aim for improving women’s situation in our society. So in that sense, yes, I do have a higher standard for feminists than sexists; on a very basic level, feminists are supposed to be on my side!
Feminists who hate trans people are promoting the idea that born women should improve their lot at the expense of other women who happen to be male-bodied (or formerly male-bodied). That’s even worse than saying that only some women count; this kind of feminism is actively harmful to a subset of women. That disgusts me, just as any (thankfully entirely hypothetical) branch of feminism that promoted the rights of white women at the expense of black women would disgust me.
[cont in next comment]
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
>>Sexism is obviously bad. If I see a poster making a sexist comment I think, dumb sexist and skip over it. >>
On a visceral level, this is my reaction. “Oh, whatever. Alsis can snap you in half.” I feel the same way about anti-trans posters on a message board consisting primarily of transpeople, particularly if there are commenters there to debunk before I even read the thread.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
piny wrote:
Cheryl could argue the point if she wished to, but I’m not at all sure that a radicial feminist only thread MUST exclude MTF voices. In Cheryl’s case, I’m about 99.9% sure that they would not be welcomed, but it doesn’t follow that every Radical Feminist who came down the plank to post or write articles would treat MTF’s like the plague, even if they have issues with the idea of transexualism.
As for sitting quietly in the room while terrible things go on elsewhere/nearby, all I can say is “Welcome to my world, piny.” I have learned to hold my tongue in this space when some incredibly inflammatory stuff is written about feminists, not because I want to, but because it’s expected. Those who have suggested that I can start my own blog or camp elsewhere are quite correct. Learning to hold my tongue on days when all I want to do is swear up a blue streak is part of the “price of doing business here.” The day that condition becomes intolerable to me is the day that I’ll take off for good. As it is, I settle for sometimes disappearing for weeks or months at a time, and don’t come back until I have a reserve of calm to draw on.
In any case, Cheryl has stated that she won’t be writing articles in this space. Piny, have you considered asking to post something of your own ?
BTW, I was not trying to put words in Amp’s mouth about his intentions for the space. I was more curious as to why some bigotries and “-isms” are deal-breakers to people and why others are not.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
[Part 2 of reply to alsis39]
I also think there’s a difference between the bloggers (whether regulars or guests) taking a particular line, and commenters saying things that might offend me. Getting the right balance of moderation is hard. If it’s too lax, comment threads become unreadable because they are full of pharma spam and meaningless insults. Amp is attempting to modify the moderation policy here; many people feel that the status quo is indeed too lax and the threads are too dominated by misogynist trolls.
My impression of the comment threads here is that there are some out-and-out misogynist trolls, and they take longer to get banned than I might ideally like. But my definition of troll is narrower than some people’s; I sometimes see honest disagreement where others see “women lie, … women sometimes rape, ergo feminism has no philosophical leg to stand on”.
Nobody is accusing Amp of being sexist, though; many say he’s not feminist enough, he’s giving too much benefit of the doubt to people who are sexist. If he were to have a personality transplant and become sexist, I would be right there in the scramble for the virtual door. In the same way, I will not read a blog where there is an official policy that is anti-trans (whereas I am prepared to roll my eyes and skip over the occasional offensive comment).
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
Jerg, you’re actually defending that thread? As the ‘morphined up c-section mother’ among other choice insulting tidbits, I can tell you you’re plumb out of your fucking skull if you think this is anything other than inflammatory NON-FEMINIST commentary. It’s bullshit attacks that have the bold faced audacity to USE feminism as a whip to their perceived enemy, and anything that gets in their way at getting to their perceived enemy.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
[snort] Char and funnie.
Ugh. I’ve been slimed. Watch your back around those two, Kim. bean could tell you some stories if she hasn’t already.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
>>Cheryl could argue the point if she wished to, but I’m not at all sure that a radicial feminist only thread MUST exclude MTF voices. In Cheryl’s case, I’m about 99.9% sure that they would not be welcomed, but it doesn’t follow that every Radical Feminist who came down the plank to post or write articles would treat MTF’s like the plague, even if they have issues with the idea of transexualism.>>
Well, we’re basically talking about Cheryl, at least to start off with. And what if there were, say, four threads maintained by radical feminists who called out transphobia but three that allowed it to flourish? Four threads that excluded and bashed transwomen and three that permitted them to complain? Should I be more comfortable with that situation? I’m not comfortable with anyone being allowed to “treat MTFs like the plague” without any accountability to actual transwomen.
You can drop the .01. She’s said so on this thread and in plenty of other places, and it’s exactly how she maintains The Margins. Woman-only means no transwomen, full stop. Radical feminism is incompatible with “trans politics,” full stop. If you have any doubt that threads maintained by her and most of the radical feminists in her closer internet circle would be transphobic or pro-anti-trans, go check out The Margins and read what her commenters are allowed to say without any rebuttal or restraint at all.
>>As for sitting quietly in the room while terrible things go on elsewhere/nearby, all I can say is “Welcome to my world, piny.” I have learned to hold my tongue in this space when some incredibly inflammatory stuff is written about feminists, not because I want to, but because it’s expected. >>
Like I said, I don’t agree with Amp’s rules of order. That’s different, however, from being completely disabled from posting at all. Take this, for example: I sent Amp an email saying that I wouldn’t post in this thread because I wasn’t sure I could be civil. I decided that I could be polite, and here I am having a polite discussion with you. I would love to swear a blue streak, believe me. I know exactly what it’s like to want to tear someone’s virtual face off but to have to breathe deep and write like a character in a Jane Austen novel. But at least I’m not gagged altogether, prohibited from posting so much as a link to rebut a baldfaced lie. At least I can come back, when I’m calm.
>>In any case, Cheryl has stated that she won’t be writing articles in this space. Piny, have you considered asking to post something of your own ?>>
Amp asked. I’m considering it. I’m a little short on time these days. Of course, this serious of comments is about as time-consuming as a blog post of its own.
>>BTW, I was not trying to put words in Amp’s mouth about his intentions for the space. I was more curious as to why some bigotries and “-isms” are deal-breakers to people and why others are not.>>
I want to make it clear that I’m not any happier with sexism than with transphobia–and if there were anti-feminist threads that excluded feminists from commenting, or anti-woman threads that excluded women, I’d leave this space as well.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
>>I would love to swear a blue streak, believe me. >>
Not at you, mind.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
I wonder if MTF (trans) women often get more feminist a few years after transitioning, or whether the transition experience itself continues to overshadow subsequent social-female experience. (ie, Do they attribute getting cheated at the auto repair place or being pushed out of line by a bossy guy or being passed over for work opportunities to trans status or to woman status or both?) And what happens to feminist opinions of former “lesbians” who transition to socially recognised maleness? It strikes me that there are many things for the non-trans feminists to learn from the various trans experiences. Besides reading the trans memoir boom, I’d say real-time discussions on these radfem threads would be enhanced by including feminist transfolk.
(official disclaimer: I am rather new at trans terminology, and if I occasionally flub a quiz in Trans 101, be assured that I am trying to be respectful)
Unofficial humor: I identify as a Radical Blogcommentspacer (that cartoon critter peering out between blog comments, a charming and unique feature of Alas)
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
The Countess, Ginmar wasn’t banned. She left because she was sick of the attacks on her I believe.
After much talk and a little research I have learned I am not a radical feminist. (Yet, anyway, as someone stated above how she transformed into one, it’s entirely possible I will too.) I am off to find out just what kind of feminist i AM. Thank you for this thread for at least helping me learn these things. It has seemed to gone to hell a bit though….
This comment was written by Casey.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
piny wrote:
Eh, I’m on the shit-list of at least one or two of her regulars. And I’m not even trans. Forgive me if I forgo that particular pleasure. :/ Really, I try and wear it as a badge of honor.
I’m crushed.
Incidentally, what helped me decide that being anti-trans was not the way to go was seeing how often that attitude goes hand and hand with misogyny– and seeing some of the really skeevy misogynists the more vehement anti-trans feminists were willing to align themselves with in other spaces;Even when it was clear that they had nothing to bond over but being anti-trans.
Blecch.
bean has written some good comments on reconciling one’s misgivings about transition –and its possible place in reinforcing traditional gender roles– with radical feminism WITHOUT daydreaming of some holy crusade against transexuals themselves. I couldn’t even begin to tell you where it was, though. :o Sorry.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Jesurgislac
The best thing would for be you to show how my précis materially differs from what G. wrote. It wasn’t a misreading ““ slimy or otherwise.
I didn’t know when I posted it, by the way, that Ginmar had been banned: I think my position is eminently defensible and am happy to argue it with anyone. And, given the Margin’s link, Heart’s rebuke and now yours (not to mention the tongue-lashing G gave me on her blog) I hardly see that I’ve got away with anything.
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 5:53 pm
Oh, my bad about ginmar. I missed that post I guess. (I had to do a “find” for amp’s posts just to find it. This page is getting too long!!)
And Tom Nolan - would u give it a rest already?! Sheesh.
This comment was written by Casey.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
Well, I’m not an expert on transgender issues by any means. But I think that part of some feminists’ issues involved the fact that many of them were born male, and thus enjoyed gender priviliages as boys and men for at least part of their lives, an option not available to women born women. While both groups may be women, they do not have the same biological gender origins. That’s one explanation I’ve heard said before, of the difficulties in discussions. I’m not knowlegeable of the issues myself, though.
I’ve been mostly reading b/c each time I can come back to this discussion, so much has been written!
I’ve always understood what Q Grrl’s said. Don’t always agree with her, but I understood her posts. She’s very intelligent and well-spoken, well-written I mean. I can say that about everyone here. Well, except what Tom Nolan’s been going on about for the past day-and-a-half. Generally, the discussions here are very interesting, informative and insightful. But some of the threads have problems, mostly the women’s issues threads.
I don’t personally care if people insult me, call me names. I’ve got thick skin, because I deal with that all the time IRL. But all people are different. I don’t think it’s any worse than people who pretend to be civil, but are using other means to be disrespectful of the topic at hand, particularly issues that affect women, i.e. DV and rape, b/c that’s where you see this behavior the most. But others don’t believe or see that as a sign of obnoxious behavior. But some of the feminists have spoken out against every thread on DV or rape and how they affect women, has been turned into a “what about the men?” thread and have received a variety of responses in return. I think that’s maybe why many women feel like these discussions can only take place among women, feminists or even radical feminists. That’s one reason why “women only” space was born in the first place.
It would have been nice to know up front about ginmar’s status too, b/c people were told not to talk about her without explanation. Which leads to the assumption she was banned(which she apparently was) yet then there’s talk that she left voluntarily, possibly even in the face of being banned. It was a bit confusing.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Jake Squid”: “I agree that lately the comment threads have devolved. That’s why I like the idea of Amps new moderation policies and why I like Heart’s suggestions of woman-only threads. But I still think that there is a place for nasty thugs like Susan here, if only to show what the arguments against feminism devolve into.”
Most feminists already know what the arguments against feminism are and what they devolve into. Those arguments and devolutions have repeated themselves in the same manner over and over again on blogs, Usenet, message boards, chat rooms, and mailing lists for many, many years. Sometimes allowing trolls to hang themselves with their own rope is useful, but most of the time the same shit comes up over and over again, and allowing the arguments to continue in feminist forums is not useful. I have about a half-dozen templates that I copy/paste to comments forums when I see the same shit come up over and over again - that’s how often it comes up. I’ve had those templates for nearly ten years. That shows how long those baseless arguments have been around. I keep a tight rein on my blog, and I don’t allow anti-feminists, men’s/fathers’ rights activists, and the like to turn my blog into their personal soapbox. I wouldn’t have much tolerance for “nasty thugs”, no matter how polite they pretend to be.
I know from past experience that feminists do not feel safe in those kinds of environments, and they won’t post in them. They won’t post in feminist forums if that kind of disruption takes place. I’ve seen numerous feminist mailing lists and message boards become destroyed when anti-feminists and their ilk take over with their polite and not-so-polite commentary.
I see that this thread has devolved even more than it had when I last posted. I’m not surprised to see that, but I’m still very disappointed.
This comment was written by The Countess.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
Well, I’m not an expert on transgender issues by any means. But I think that part of some feminists’ issues involved the fact that many of them were born male, and thus enjoyed gender priviliages as boys and men for at least part of their lives, an option not available to women born women. While both groups may be women, they do not have the same biological gender origins. That’s one explanation I’ve heard said before, of the difficulties in discussions. I’m not knowlegeable of the issues myself, though.
I of course am not an expert on transgender issues either, though I have attempted for the last 15 years to understand transgender issues both from a social and a biological aspect since I am gay and am a geneticist … molecular biologist to be exact). From my own experience and understanding, I would like to make some points/questions that I’d raise if such a ‘women feminist’ thread every arose here on Alas and considered barring MTF.
and thus enjoyed gender priviliages as boys and men for at least part of their lives
Though I can see the point, to some point didn’t they not enjoy many of those privileges in reality? From most MTF I know, they were often excluded from the patriarchal priviliges and society they found themselves in because they were, in some ways, worse in the eyes of the patriarchy then women. Most I know were in fear of beatings, rape, ostracism, powerlessness and more because of their gender ‘ambiguity’ even though physically they presented as male. I’m sure this has been discussed ad nasueum on other forums, I just now ‘expanding’ my view to a larger feminism.. so I’m a neophyte. The experience might not be identical, but I would think a MTF would have a extremely important voice to how patriarchy hurts women and men.
Additionally, isn’t becoming a female the ultimate expression of a male denying male privilege and the benefits of patriarchy, which denial some radical feminists demand for men to be considered feminists (at least from the half dozen threads I’ve read out there so far). I would hope that MTF would be welcomed with open arms instead of barred. (saying that as a man who understands why women feminists would want women-only discussion threads).
they do not have the same biological gender origins.
not quite true. I’ll have to look through my papers, but something like half of all self-identified transgendered individuals have some quite easily determined chromosomal or genetic variation that would make them ‘biologically’ either female or non-determinate. Its often because of our patriarchal preference for the male gender and society that we often label them as ‘male’ because of physical appearance (no matter how ‘passing’). One can ‘look’ male, but not be.
anyway, just my thoughts…
This comment was written by trey.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 7:11 pm
Does that mean that I don’t get any biscotti, after all ?
Damn.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Hey, I’m still here, Alsis. Help yourself to some biscotti. :::handing Alsis the plate:::
This comment was written by The Countess.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
The Countess,
In what way do you feel that it devolved further after your previous post/ Susan quit posting? It seemed to me that it had actually even gotten back on to the original topic, with the discussion of trans women and women-only spaces.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
Most feminists already know what the arguments against feminism are and what they devolve into.
I agree wholeheartedly. However, when I first came here I didn’t know anything about these arguments. Some of the repetitive threads really taught me a lot. And, as others seem to have had the same experience, it seems to me that those threads do serve a productive purpose.
I know from past experience that feminists do not feel safe in those kinds of environments, and they won’t post in them.
That is why I think that Amp’s new policy of having anti-feminist free threads is a good one. It gives us all a space where we can discuss the issue at hand without intentional derailments by the usual suspects.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Most feminists already know what the arguments against feminism are and what they devolve into.
Sure, but as Jake points out, a lot of well-meaning people don’t, and it’s these folks who likely will be feminists just as soon as they give some thought to the sorts of arguments we’re talking about. Like Jake, I’ve learned a lot from such repetitive threads, even as they bored the crap out of, say, you, Countess. Tiresome as it may be, there will always be people coming to feminist ideas for the first time, which is why I think a space like Alas, which tolerates dissent and repetitive argument, is invaluable.
(Having said that, I’ll reiterate that I’m all for women-only spaces, including here on Alas if management decides to do that, and I like the new moderation policies.)
This comment was written by sennoma.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
Yeah, I kind of gathered that. I responded to Ginmar in private email, but the rest I kind of figure don’t deserve a response. For some reason they think that feminism seems to equate with using anything they can get their hands on, verified or not and use it as a weapon on whatever they are fighting against. That’s not my schtick, and I kindly invite them to go fuck themselves. Civilly that is. Like I said though, I’m not a real fan of Amp’s whole ‘lets be merry and hold hands, feminists and anti-feminists one and all’, and I definitely support the notion that the feminists shouldn’t be silenced, but that doesn’t mean I support the vindictive assholery (they weren’t keen on my made up words - oh wells!), or attacks on my family and friends that seem to run rampant over there.
Okay enough of my ranting.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 9:43 pm
On Alas a Blog, there’s a big argument about whether we should haveradical feminist onlythreads. I’m mostly in favor, although I think people of all genders should be able to participate. As a race woman, I understand how annoying it is to have a conversation of importance derailed because of some jackhole wondering why us uppity colored
This comment was written by Egotistical Whining.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
huge kerfuffle
This comment was written by The Argument Clinic.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:23 pm
Ok, off to Dark Odessy in DC. Wish me luck. If you miss me, you may want tocheck out this thread over on Alas, a blog that I have become involved in. BTW - This blog is now runnign on Wordpress 2.0 with a new template, so pardon the lack of functionality.
This comment was written by core/dump.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2005 at 10:49 pm
Casey
Sorry to go on - I was just responding to accusations. But I won’t from now on, unless they’re really serious ones. You’re quite right that merely getting accused of having written a “slimy misrepresentation” - given the kind of verbal abuse that gets batted to and fro on this site on a daily basis - was nothing to get worked up about.
I’ll sit on my hands.
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 12:39 am
Additionally, isn’t becoming a female the ultimate expression of a male denying male privilege and the benefits of patriarchy, which denial some radical feminists demand for men to be considered feminists (at least from the half dozen threads I’ve read out there so far). I would hope that MTF would be welcomed with open arms instead of barred. (saying that as a man who understands why women feminists would want women-only discussion threads).
Well, not necessarily. For example, one could easily become a female who is “better than” other females and doesn’t feel any kind of solidarity with other women or any particular interest in opposing patriarchy.
Misogynist women still identify as women, after all, and those of the Ann Coulter/Phyllis Schlafly variety make much of being more feminine, prettier, “better” women than the rest of us.
I realise this is peripheral to the question of trans inclusion/exclusion on feminist boards, but I don’t think that femaleness equals feminism, no matter how broadly or narrowly you define it.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 1:49 am
and didn’t advocate for her state with Washington. Just had to clear that up. There’s a fun meme making the rounds. Alexandra from All Things Beautiful asks who are the worst 10 Americans (via Ampersand, whose blog is also having a minidown aboutseparate feminist threads). How to be happy? Darrin M. McMahon says don’t try. He quotes JS Mill: “Those only are happy,” he came to believe, “who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness; on the happiness of others, on the improvement of mankind,
This comment was written by 11D.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 2:23 am
Tom: The best thing would for be you to show how my précis materially differs from what G. wrote.
Your distortions are not worth my time. Anyone can link, check through, and see that your “précis” slimed and distorted what Ginmar actually wrote.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 2:34 am
I think this discussion has reached an impasse - and, anyhow, both of you have expressed confidence that other readers can just read Ginmar’s original and draw their own judgement. Unless either of you has something new to add, I’d prefer both of you to drop this topic. Thanks.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 2:54 am
I was thinking about the issue of trans-gendered people, and could help thinking of the woman I worked with who started working at the workplace as a man (before my time). That person would have a unique perspective, as she had tried:
1) being a man
2) being a woman
3) being an ex-man
She belongs to the third group only in those places where people knew her before she changed her sex.
I would expect that just about every trangendered woman would have the same perspectives, and it could be interesting to hear if there is any difference between being perceived as a woman and an ex-man by other men?
Of course, this might be one of the tired old questions of the debate, which I don’t really know much about. If it is, please ignore it.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 4:34 am
the cross for public flagellation in the name of The Cause obviously isn’t a real women. You wymmin can keep your cat box. I’ll be out here with the rest of the moderates who accept me as a woman regardless of my lack of Righteous Feminist Rage. *Alas, A Blog
This comment was written by ban-sidhe.org.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 5:18 am
(I’ve skim read most of the above, I hope this isn’t going over old ground).
I love Alas, I started reading a few years back as a baby feminist and I’ve used the resources and posts here in articles and blog posts ever since. I rarely post, mostly because I don’t think I can add much, as a 19 year-old feminist, to the discussions involving much deeper thinkers with more experience than me.
That said (and possibly making me unqualified to express this opinion), the idea of moderated radical feminist only threads makes me uneasy. I know Heart said they would be moderated and the agenda set by Rad fems, and any feminist woman could participate, but the power of moderation is the power to decide who is and isn’t trolling.
I’m a socialist feminist. I often have strong disagreements with the Radical feminists I come into contact with, to the point of being accused of a) not being very feminist or b) being a tool of the patriarchy. Whilst I know that the vast majority of Rad fems probably aren’t likely to chime in with this, I think if there are going to be feminist woman-only threads, it needs to be taken into account that feminists can violently disagree on issues without being trolls.
Maybe that goes without saying, but it was my first thought on reading this.
This comment was written by Sofie B.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 6:12 am
Sofie B, maybe a self-identified feminist should field this one, but on this thread I was rightly taken to task for implying that a feminist-only discussion would just be a feel-good echo chamber. I think the felt need for feminist-only, woman-only threads has much to do with fostering discussion of the kind of disagreements you describe, without distractions from
- “men are victims too” posts from men (either generic or some particular man’s experience)
- “it’s not really that bad/sexism doesn’t really exist any more” posts from men and the occasional woman
- basic questions about what feminism or radical feminism or rape culture is — even though if you asked 10 feminists you’d probably get 12 different answers
not because these viewpoints and questions aren’t valid, but because they derail any in-depth discussion of feminist issues.
(Credit to Bean: that’s essentially what she said to me when she took me to task. At least I am learning.)
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 8:41 am
I have very little to add that hasn’t already been covered, esp by piny and individ, but I would like to add my two cents and say that while I think a female-feminist-only space on Alas is an excellent idea, I’m completely appalled by the suggestion that it be made open only to women-born-women. To me, creating a women-only space and then specifically excluding women who already have their voices silenced by society as a whole runs counter to the whole *point* of having a women’s only space. Not to mention reinforcing the idea that transwomen aren’t really women.
Transphobia isn’t any more acceptable than racism is. I would no more stay around a space that implicitly encouraged transphobia than one that encouraged racism.
This comment was written by Imagynne.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 9:17 am
even though if you asked 10 feminists you’d probably get 12 different answers
Oh absolutely, feminists can discuss without it turning into a circle jerk. But what I’m worried about is who gets to define what a feminist issue is, and what a feminist looks like. Feeds into the women-born-women issue too I suppose.
This comment was written by Sofie B.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 9:44 am
Sophie:
That sums up my concerns rather susinctly. There is so much variation among feminist thought, and that variety unless properly moderated could cause individuals with valid points to be silenced. That silencing might result from the perception that one viewpoint is less “feminist” than another or that one issue is less “feminist”.
I haven’t seen a whole lot of that going on here, but otoh most feminists here are too busy refuting MRA’s and anit-feminist arguments to have those indepth discussions about feminist issues. I’ll wait and see how Amp’s new moderation policy works out, while continuing to think on it further.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:02 am
Right. It’s possible to debate whether a given issue is feminist, or even whether a given argument is anti-feminist, but often the discussions here don’t get that far. Even I get tired of it, and I love a good argument and don’t self-identify as a feminist (see below).
Slightly OT: the human compulsion to categorize and to seek group identity interests me. On those right-wing blogs I keep referring to there are periodic discussions of who is and is not a “real Christian,” how you can tell when you meet one, etc. (On another Christian blog that I read religiously, so to speak, they don’t seem to worry about it much. Guess which blog seems the more Christian to me? but I digress.) You can find similar checklists for “real conservatives,” “real liberals,” and on and on. The evolutionary heritage is obvious, but the urge seems stronger in some people than in others, and those people seem often to gravitate to extremes, where the arguments about authenticity are often most passionate.
Myself, I’ve given up categories. To quote one of my favorite novels, at my age you don’t worry so much about what you are as about being able to go on being it.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:07 am
I’ve given un the labeling and categorization thing as well. And I find your observation about those that need the stricture of categorization gravitating to the extremes and edges of philisophical thought and political groups. I shall have to do some thinking about that.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:28 am
So have I. I honestly don’t know which category of feminism I fit into, and in the end I don’t think it matters. Cathy Young said that I was a Liberal Feminist in one of her articles, mainly because I supposed in a comment thread that I was a Liberal Feminist, and she might have read that. I’m honestly not sure. As far as I’m concerned, I’m just a feminist. I’ve never really thought about what category I fit in. I work on family and motherhood issues most of the time, and I don’t even know if there is a category for feminists who work on those issues.
I do find discussions of the different categories of feminism interesting though, even though everyone has a different description for each category. Feminists work on a wide variety of issues, and their activism differs greatly. I think categorization might help sometimes if you want to find like-minded feminist individuals.
This comment was written by The Countess.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:52 am
You at least call yourself a feminist, Countess. About all I can confidently say is that I’m a woman. Born that way, but that’s just luck of the draw.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 11:03 am
In the end that is the most important thing, how we identify ourselves. The names and tags used aren’t (to me) of near the importance of the actions taken. Lu, if you work towards the equality of women and the end of oppression in all its forms then in my eyes you are a feminist, even if you don’t choose to call yourself one.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 11:23 am
Though it’s a different thread, that ties into my thoughts about transgender.
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Alsis - i thought the Dalek thing was our secret! Nonetheless, if your cartoon has a few ducks in it, i’ll happily come and serve coffee while you draw.
This comment was written by Nella.Robert - many thanks for providing a practical illustration of Godwin’s law.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff over at Alas, A Blog has proposed creating women’s-only threads there. Well,Radical Feminist Women’s Threads, anyway. Because that’s what feminism is all about: creating a women’s-only treehouse so we can sit up there and throw eggs at the men’s-only treehouse. Yea. That’ll be real productive. Leaving the whole “What’s a radical feminist?” thing alone
This comment was written by feminist blogs.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
FAQs exist for this very reason. Thinking out loud: I know Amp wrote a post (or two?) on rape culture, for people who don’t know what the farg that means. I could be wrong, but it seems like he could easily provide a permanent link to that post and maybe some others, so that people could easily direct questioners to these links. Or he could pick some other sources that he’d endorse. Ideally one or more links would lead to open discussions of these basic issues, since then nobody would have the slightest excuse for continuing to discuss them elsewhere as distractions. But of course, this would involve more technical issues than a simple FAQ.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
So how can you have “radical-feminist only” threads if no one can agree on what a radical feminist is?
How about this: Amp, given that you’re the moderator, what do you consider a radical feminist?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 11:14 pm
who are aggravated by this are the ones who are told to “tone it down.” This came to a head for me yesterday, when (I think as a last-ditch effort) it was proposed that some threads be set aside for radical feminist discussion only. And Ampersand hadthis response
This comment was written by Where you from, Kansas?.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 1:04 am
RonF,
Where are you getting the idea that no one can agree on what a radical feminist is? Susan really isn’t the best authority to trust on this subject! Heart is one, and QGrrl is one. There seems to be general agreement that no one else who posts here regularly particularly is one. Various slightly variant definitions have been provided, but there doesn’t seem to be any really fundamental disagreement here over the term.
Also threads here are generally moderated by their owners, so if there was a radical-feminist only thread (which, in any case, no one proposed - Heart proposed a women-only radical-feminist-friendly thread and then decided against it) then the thread owner (presumably a radical feminist) would be the one to decide if commentors seemed to be radical feminists.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 1:35 am
Well . . . there is a regular poster who goes by the handle ‘Radfem.’ I won’t assume she’s a radical feminist just because of the name, but it certainly seems likely, no?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 1:38 am
Why aren’t feminist women standing up for Ginmar? Why didn’t more women leave here in disgust when Paige and Funnie were banned?
Here’s why I’m not standing up for Ginmar:
Back in October I posted a comment on her board saying I thought women should not be afraid to arm themselves, and should think twice before dressing in ways that made them vulnerable.
Ginmar emailed me, and among the things she said to me were:
“God, you are a stupid bitch, aren’t you? If in fact you are a woman and not a male troll. ”
I still have the email and another and will be glad to share it with anybody who thinks I’m making it up.
I am a woman and a feminist, and Ginmar went ballistic on me when I disagreed with her on something that wasn’t even outside the bounds of feminism.
Ginmar gets to be a thin-skinned control freak on her own board. But nobody else should base the rules of their board on her tender overwrought sensibilities, since it would kill reasonable discourse and ban disagreements, even disagreements between bona fide feminists.
This comment was written by Nancy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 2:03 am
Myca,
Actually, radfem has commented on one of these threads recently that, name aside, she does not consider herself particularly a radical feminist, so, while it might seem likely, it appears it is not the case.
There may well be other posters who consider themselves radical feminists, but none have jumped in to categorize themselves thusly.
I think Crys T, who used to be a regular commentor, but whom I haven’t seen a post from in quite a while, may consider herself a radical feminist, but I am not sure.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 7:30 am
Huh! Wow, I wouldn’t have guessed that. I suppose that’ll teach me to judge a book by it’s title.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 7:32 am
Nancy: I still have the email and another and will be glad to share it with anybody who thinks I’m making it up.
Oh, better than that, Nancy, why not link to what you actually wrote?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 8:34 am
Ginmar didn’t e-mail you Nancy. Maybe you’ve misunderstood Livejournal. If someone responds to one of your posts on a thread you also get a copy of it by e-mail from LiveJournal. You’re painting her out to be interested enough in you to send you e-mails when in fact it’s you who posted on her livejournal and now are responding about her here.
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 9:01 am
What Nancy wrote on Ginmar’s journal:
How Nancy summarised it here: women should not be afraid to arm themselves, and should think twice before dressing in ways that made them vulnerable.
I don’t think you have to be a “thin-skinned control freak” to object to being called a “self-deluded critter” or to object to the argument Nancy was trying to make that women who dress in a certain way invite rape.
Many, many people responded to Nancy’s comment on Ginmar’s journal. Nancy responded to only one, who said “What we’re saying is that expecting women to shoot any guy who comes on to us is a tad bit unrealistic. Also, quit insulting pigs.” to which Nancy responded, ever-so-civilly: “Who’s expecting women to shoot any guy who comes on to us? Certainly not me in my post - which you would know if you read it, dumbfuck.”
If Ginmar’s been banned, how about also banning these creeps who show up to abuse her in what they evidently think is now safe territory to insult her?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 10:16 am
I’m glad you decided to bring that up, Nancy. I recall that thread, and I in fact participated in it, and tried to point out some of the fallacies in your argument, and why in fact it does indeed go outside the bounds of feminism, to the extent of being incredibly offensive. You didn’t bother to reply to me. You attacked Ginmar first. Your behavior was the very definition of trolling.
So I find it funny that you’d bring that instance up and act as if she was the bad guy for not being tolerant of the victim blaming offensive stuff you were poluting her conversation with.
You’re not a feminist. You’re a rapist-apologist.
This comment was written by Oracleofdoom.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 10:17 am
Nancy’s comment here perfectly illustrates the problem of people who call themselves feminists when they’re quite clearly not. So people like Ginmar are banned, for having the guts not to be nice and polite and “civilized” when faced with misogynistic comments, and people like Nancy get to stay.
So Ginmar was banned because she wouldn’t be a good little woman, wouldn’t stay quiet, didn’t want to let the guys run roughshod over her, called out the hypocrisy of “feminists” who allow misogynists to comment whilst they ban comments from women who are sick of dealing with this kind of shit every day. And this is supposed to be a feminist blog?
Well, hey, thanks for proving to us once again that a lot of men can only deal with feminists (and women) provided we stick to their terms, don’t make them uncomfortable, don’t demand that they take a real stand against misogyny.
I’ve found this blog very useful for its news items and links. I rarely get involved in the comments because I just can’t be bothered to deal with the crap that gets spouted. I deal with it enough in real life. I’m glad there are people like Ginmar around who have the stomach to deal with it. I think I’ll just stick to her LJ from now on.
This comment was written by C.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 10:39 am
Can we please STOP DISCUSSING GINMAR?
Nancy (and anyone else reading this), I have to agree with Jesu: Ginmar’s been banned from this forum. Criticizing her in the comments here is simply unfair.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 11:01 am
And, Nancy, I have to agree with Jesu and others that invoking the she-asked-for-it defense is way outside the bounds of feminism (any kind, as I understand feminism).
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 11:31 am
Yeah, I’ll stop discussing her. I’ve seen how radical feminists are treated here. I’ll be reading her blog instead.
This comment was written by Oracleofdoom.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 12:31 pm
In post #62, Heart wrote:
I certainly agree that the way to evaluate male supremacy is to compare women and men’s situations “all else held equal,” as you say. The fact that so often anti-feminists refuse to do this - instead comparing Hilary Clinton to a homeless black man, to use an example I’ve seen several different anti-feminists come up with - is either a sign of poor faith or poor thinking on their part.
However, if I understand your argument correctly (and maybe I don’t), you seem to be saying that this sort of comparison shows men to be better off “across the board,” and therefore we should understand “sexism as the first or root or foundational or core oppression, with all other oppressions … racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, modeled after this one.”
Here’s where I’m confused: Couldn’t you say the same thing about virtually any other kind of widepread oppression? For instance, I’d argue that the correct way to evaluate white supremacy is to compare whites and blacks who are similarly situated in all ways other than race. Doing this will show whites to be better off than blacks “across the board.” Does it therefore follow that racism is the root oppression, and all other oppressions are modeled on it?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Nancy’s argument about how to stop rape reminds me of the argument that folks who want Union organization at jobs where there wages are low are stupid to organize. If they are treated like shit they should just go get a better job.
A woman employee at Powell’s Books back when they were first organizing had the best, most straightforward response I’ve ever heard. “Sure,” she said, “It’s possible that I could go out there and find something better. But that only solves MY problem. It doesn’t solve the problem for all the folks who’ll take my place in the future.”
IOW, the problem with calling for women to dress like mountaineers and pack heat to ward off rapists is that A) Not only might it not work for the individual woman, but also B) It’s an INDIVIDUALISTIC solution to a MASS problem.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 1:17 pm
I posted a message that expressed exasperation on Ginmar’s board, but I certainly said nothing that other feminists haven’t said. Saying that women should reconsider dressing in vulnerable ways is basically what Twisty says all the time.
[Nancy - I said that I didn't want any more posts criticizing Ginmar here, and I meant it. I've therefore deleted the rest of your post. You've had your two cents about Ginmar; now let the subject drop, please. --Amp]
This comment was written by Nancy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 1:23 pm
>>I want to go back to this idea that trans have “better insights” into being a woman and a feminist. I find this line of thinking to be so repugnant as to be anti-woman and anti-feminist.>>
Same here, and everything you’ve said is true. Transwomen can frequently have _different_ insights into what it means to be a woman, since they come at the experience from a different angle, just as transmen can have different insights into how manhood works. However, there’s certainly nothing more valuable about our experiences, and we really don’t have any ability to speak to female or male upbringing.
One thing, though: I have seen “trans” used as a noun, as in “the trans,” or “a trans,” by exactly one transwoman: Renee Culver. Transpeople themselves generally say, “transsexual,” “transgendered,” “transman,” “transwoman,” “transpeople,” “transgendered people,” or “trans/transgendered community.” These are terms that emphasize our humanity. They don’t elide transgender, transsexual, and genderqueer identities. They don’t refuse to refer to us in our chosen gender. “A trans” is along the same lines as, “a black,” or “a gay.” It’s common usage in spaces like The Margins, and I personally am not comfortable with it, although other transpeople may feel otherwise.
>>Also, not all transwomen are feminist … even, if you exclude those who consider themselves to be feminist but hold different beliefs than mine (like those I mentioned in the other thread, which contradict my own idea of feminism), there are still a number of transwomen who don’t even hold feminist beliefs of any type. There are some transwomen who more concerned about “passing” and will grasp onto every female steretype out there, just to aid in that goal.>>
It bears repeating that in this they aren’t different from many non-trans women.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 1:28 pm
I posted a message that expressed exasperation on Ginmar’s board, but I certainly said nothing that other feminists haven’t said. Saying that women should reconsider dressing in vulnerable ways is basically what Twisty says all the time.>>
Ooooooo, you did Not. Just. Say. That.
Twisty’s point in brief is that it’s a fucked up way for the patriarchy to expect women to dress, and that women should be conscious of the dynamic that it’s built on so that they can resist in whatever way possible. She does not object to revealing clothing because it’s rapist-bait. She objects to it because it embodies a sexist double-standard. She has never, ever said that women are responsible for the behavior of rapists, or that women should live in fear, or that women should adopt a risk-reduction strategy in lieu of fighting for feminist reforms such that they don’t need to be vigilantes.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 1:33 pm
She has never, ever said that women are responsible for the behavior of rapists, or that women should live in fear, or that women should adopt a risk-reduction strategy in lieu of fighting for feminist reforms such that they don’t need to be vigilantes.
And I never said those things either. If you think I did, please quote exactly where I said any such things.
Twisty’s constantly mocking the whole “sexbot” mentality and women who say that they dress in sexbot ways to please themselves. In her most recent post she said:
Tears of fierce pride will well up in her Maybellined eyes when she tells her worried women’s studies friends with a wave of her French manicure to lighten up, that feminism is for angry frigid dykes, that she’s making shitloads of dough, that she’s getting her boobs done to please herself, and that she bought that $600 leather bustier mainly, you know, for other women.
That’s what I’m talking about. I mentioned high heels rather than leather bustiers, but you surely see the connection.
This comment was written by Nancy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 1:43 pm
I’ve just deleted 90% of Nancy’s most recent post about Ginmar.
Again, Alas is not the place to discuss Ginmar. If you want to discuss Ginmar, go elsewhere.
As far as everything else goes, please keep it civil, folks. (Of course, by saying that, I’ll probably have pissed off a bunch of people!).
And Bean, I’m not sure why your posts keep getting moderated. If it keeps on happening, I can try to figure it out Monday or Tuesday.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 1:47 pm
Right you are. I’ve removed BDSM from the hotwords list, so that should fix the problem.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Nancy, as soon as you put avoiding rape on women, you are out of the feminist ballpark. You are on a slippery slope at the bottom of which women must wear burqas if they are allowed out in public at all, and they get raped anyway.
I can’t immediately find it (Amp, maybe you can help me out here), but Amp posted the best antirape advice I have ever seen. It went something like:
- If a woman is provocatively dressed, don’t rape her.
- If a woman is out late at night, don’t rape her.
- If a woman is drunk, don’t rape her.
Etc. You get the general idea.
(Obviously the vast majority of people who ask women to change their behavior to avoid rape aren’t thereby suggesting that it’s women’s fault if they get raped. They’re figuring that that’s easier than changing rapists’ behavior. It’s easier, and it may work for a given woman in a given case, but it doesn’t address the problem.)
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 2:14 pm
Perhaps you shouldn’t have (I know, I know, your blog, just disagreeing), now some people get a far better picture of Nancy than, well, the truth is (I happened to see the original). I thought her post was informative about herself.
And yep, bashing banned posters is shitty behaviour. No argument here.
Happy new year, everyone (I get it earlier than you do, neener-neener).
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Nancy: And I never said those things either. If you think I did, please quote exactly where I said any such things.
Here. (Quoted above.)
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Just as this isn’t a blog about attacking Ginmar, it’s not a blog about attacking Nancy. Nancy’s ideas are fair game, but Nancy “herself” is not, and I don’t want people posting personal attacks on Nancy or anyone else here.
Getting “a far better picture of Nancy” or any other poster here is not, in my view, a legitimate goal for comments.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 3:05 pm
A most uncharitable reading of what I wrote. My intention is not to insult Nancy (indeed, I am eager to debate her ideas if she posts them on a relevant thread). As a result of cleaning up offensive language from the opposition (I think Nancy’s position on rape is on the opposition for most feminists?), If one looks at thread now, edited, it seems like bean, Jesu, piny etc. are being unreasonably angry.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Tuomas, it appeared to me that you were talking about Nancy herself; I think that’s a very fair reading of a phrase like “a far better picture of Nancy.” If the bit I criticized was intended to discuss her views, then I misunderstood you, and I apologize for that.
However, none of the material I deleted was about “Nancy’s position on rape”; it was all Nancy’s position on Ginmar. It’s inaccurate of you to say otherwise.
Finally, please consider my position. You’re accusing me of being unfair for deleting an attack on Ginmar. Others accuse me of being unfair if I allow attacks on Ginmar. Do you see the catch-22 my critics have me in?
Besides, Ginmar can’t post on this blog; she, unlike Bean or Jesu or Piny etc, is unable to clarify her views here. Therefore, even if it is true that by deleting that post I treated Bean, Jesu, Piny, etc, unfairly, it seems possilbe to me that’s better than allowing unrestricted criticism of Ginmar to continue.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 3:41 pm
I know I’ve posted about this before elsewhere on blogs and mailing lists, but I’ll post it again here. The idea that women should “protect themselves” from rape by not dressing provocatively, learn to shoot a gun, learn to kickbox and the like, lock their doors and windows, and not walk around in the dark of night in big cities plays on the myth of the “stranger in a trenchcoat” rapist. Most rape victims know their rapists.
Please take special note of what The Rape, Abuse, And Incest National Network (RAINN) had to say about the stereotypes about rape that have posted here:
“Meanwhile, education has led to a better public understanding of the issue. The norm used to be that victims faced skeptical questions about what they were wearing and how they acted after reporting a rape to police. Now, more and more, rape is treated as the violent crime it is, with the emphasis on the actions of the rapist, not the victim. This helps create an environment where victims are more likely to report sexual assaults, thereby increasing law enforcement’s ability to prosecute and convict rapists.”
Reports of rapes have increased, which is a good thing. Rape victims aren’t being condemned for what they could or could not have done to prevent their rapes. The focus will hopefully remain on the rapists and not whether or not the rape victims were clothed properly and locked their doors and windows to prevent their own rapes.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has reported that most rape victims know their rapists.
From the Bureau of Justice Statistics: “During 2004 — About seven in ten female rape or sexual assault victims stated the offender was an intimate, other relative, a friend or an acquaintance.”
Claiming that women should stop dressing provocatively, should lock their doors and windows, and other such”suggestions” place the responsibility of the rape on the victims’ shoulders. Most women know their rapists. Most of them aren’t being raped by strangers they run across in alleys while they wear stiletto heels and short skirts.
I don’t mind repeating this kind of stuff here, but I really don’t feel like doing it because in the end it should not be necessary. I’ve had to repeat these statistics and others like it whenever stereotypes about rapists and rape victims come up. I wish I didn’t have to do it here, because it’s been done before, because that kind of crap comes up often enough. This kind of stuff should not be up for debate because there is no debate. The facts have had their say, and they don’t support the stereotypes about rape victims and rape. I see no reason to allow those kinds of stereotypes to take hold on a feminist blog.
This comment was written by The Countess.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Hmm. What I mean is that Nancy started on this thread by claiming that ginmar had been very unfair to her on post 263. She presented her on views on a very insult-free way (which they were not, originally) and ginmar as “a thin-skinned control-freak”. Her version of events. It became very clear to me, as the thread progressed, that (apologies if this amounts as a personal attack) that she was far from saintly herself (in the relevant discussion), and it appeared to me that she was going to use this space, and ginmar’s ban, as a way to get back at her in some way. Those ideas were very clearly expressed on her choice of writing, which you then deleted. Which, of course, is one way of dealing with the problem.
A modest suggestion for the catch-22: Remove all Nancy’s posts related to ginmar (not just ones that are directly insulting as it is now), and enforce a rule to ban posters who bring up the subject here again.
I’ll continue the discussion tomorrow, getting tired now.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 4:40 pm
Ampersand: However, none of the material I deleted was about “Nancy’s position on rape”; it was all Nancy’s position on Ginmar. It’s inaccurate of you to say otherwise.
But it’s not all Nancy’s position on Ginmar. You’ve left Nancy’s original attack on Ginmar intact.
Further, you posted to tell people to stop discussing Ginmar not when Nancy posted her original attack, but when people got into defending Ginmar against Nancy’s distorted version of events. (I’d prefer to assume that you just hadn’t read the thread up to Nancy’s original comment, but in fact you’d posted a comment on the thread after Nancy’s comment, in which you did not tell Nancy to stop “discussing Ginmar”.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Thanks, Countess, for being more concrete at what I was trying to say before I had my coffee.
Even the measures implied in such claims are not guaranteed to work all the time. They are not do-able all the time. Should I sleep with a shoulder holster to guard against spousal rape ? Should I wear a bra to the grocery store even though I hate the damn things just to make sure that I take away one of a rapist’s 5,000,000,000,000,000 for treating women like throwaway objects ? Oooh, maybe I’d better lop off all my hair, too. Men find that long hair mighty provocative, don’t they. It’s like a red flag in front of a bull or something.
[bangs head on keyboard.]
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Jesu:
When I said what I deleted was “all Nancy’s position on Ginmar,” I was attempting to say that the material I deleted consisted entirely of Nancy’s criticism of Ginmar, and I had deleted no other materials; not that I had deleted all the Ginmar-critique material from previous posts. However, I now see that the sentence could be read either way; sorry for the confusion.
Since a bunch of people had already posted specific replies to #263 (something that hadn’t happened with the parts of #277 I deleted, imo), I briefly considered but rejected the idea of deleting #263.
I’m trying to believe that you’re an incredibly careless reader, rather than a bad liar with a beef against me, but you’re making it hard. This is the second or third time this week you’ve posted false claims about something I did.
Nancy’s post attacking Ginmar was #263. It was the first post by her on this thread.
My first post on this thread following #263 was #271. I told everyone to lay off discussing Ginmar, but I also singled Nancy out for particular criticism. (It appears you didn’t notice that bit.)
Contrary to your claim, there was no post by me inbetween 263 and 271. This is because by the time I read #263, all the posts through #270 had already been written and all but #270 had been posted. (I had to approve #270 before it could be posted).
Even had there been a post by me between 263 and 271, there would be many possible innocent explanations (cross-posting, having a list of things I wanted to reply to, etc). But there’s no such post - you appeared to have misread the thread.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 7:09 pm
Well it’s certainly a curious problem, with regards to Ginmar and the original post. It’s hard to not address the Ginmar situation considering it’s what brought on the initial post, that has been a hotbed of discussion about what to me seems like the difference between acting like a radical feminist and acting like a complete jerkwad. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m seeing more and more the tendency of some radical feminists (not so much from our current radical fem’s here, but more on some of the different radical feminist blogs) to feel they have the right to give or take away someones ‘feminist’ credentials. I in fact lost mine this past week! Go figure. For me, it was meaningless because I know what I am, where I am and how far I’ve personally come, but it’s worth not outright ignoring, because it poses a very serious problem within the feminist community itself. How is it any different for radical feminists to attempt pushing around less radical feminists, than men doing the same? It all ends up amounting to ’sit down and shut up little lady, we know what’s good/better/best for you’.
Maybe it doesn’t need to be centered around the Ginmar controversy, but she certainly provides an example of making the line hazy when it comes to aggressive activism and abusive activism.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Ergh - hit enter before I meant to.
Anyways, to finish off, the post that Jer linked to initially where the discussion was a definitive rant and roast that was baseless about Alas, and the community that participates on Alas. When called on it, the response collectively seemed to me to be one of ‘you put your opinions and actions out on the web to be criticized by participating’ which seems to imply that anyone that extends themselves out there and addresses whatever it is others want to discuss or debate is fair game. Needless to say, the discussions I’ve witnessed this week have been enlightening and worthy of being discussed themselves in my mind, because they seem to highlight the struggles within feminism of what almost seems to be ‘ownership’ or ‘more-feminist-than-thou’ attitudes that are hardly a positive force.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 8:00 pm
Amp: If I understand your argument correctly (and maybe I don’t), you seem to be saying that this sort of comparison shows men to be better off “across the board,” and therefore we should understand “sexism as the first or root or foundational or core oppression, with all other oppressions … racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, modeled after this one.”
Here’s where I’m confused: Couldn’t you say the same thing about virtually any other kind of widepread oppression? For instance, I’d argue that the correct way to evaluate white supremacy is to compare whites and blacks who are similarly situated in all ways other than race. Doing this will show whites to be better off than blacks “across the board.” Does it therefore follow that racism is the root oppression, and all other oppressions are modeled on it?
Amp is tricksy hobbits, luring me back into this thread. Heh. Well, I have a few things to say, here and in the Transwomen thread, so it’s all good.
First, I think if we compare black people and white people who are similarly situated, we do not find that across the board, white people are worse off than black people. I think we find, for example, that black men, in general, earn more money than white women and have consistently for a very long time. I think we find that black men were, for example, enfranchised as citizens in the United States 70 years before white women were. And I think we find, for example, that black college-educated women earn more money today, than similarly situated college-educated white women. I have written about this in some depth here.
I think we can say that male supremacy is the first, or root oppression, because men, throughout history and in every culture, first oppressed women, before any man, or any tribe or culture, ever oppressed anyone on account of race, class or whom someone loved. Racism, classism, homophobia, are recent inventions compared with the subjugation of women to men because we are women. The first oppression — oppression of women because we are women — occurred wherever women were assigned the tasks of sexual servicing men, reproduction for the benefit of the tribe or people group, and wherever women were assigned the tasks of the care of infants and children for the benefit of the tribe or people group. This goes back to the very earliest civilizations in all and every part of the world, without respect to race, ethnicity, religion, people group. Students of black history — which I am — know, for example, that in the 10th, 11th centuries, kings in African people groups exchanged women, wives, concubines, with kings in white European people groups. And the African kings were as racist in the direction of European royalty as was true, vice versa. A good book to begin with for those who are unfamiliar with this history is Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America by Lerone Bennett.
Male supremacy was the very first “othering,” the very first objectification by one class of people, men, of another class of people, women. Men’s otherng of women occurred, again, across the boundaries of race, culture, class and history. The othering was enlisted in the service of specific goals, i.e., the sexual servicing of men, the bearing of children, creation and perpetuation of family dynasties, and all of the caretaking and labor involved in these efforts. In the othering of women, men learned the usefulness and efficacy of dominance hierarchies. Power-over was eroticized and celebrated. Over time other people groups were othered, in later periods of history and in various cultures, for specific reasons, most of them having to do with the amassing of wealth or the preservatin of dominance hierarchies. But the techniques by way of which a class of people — women — were made the servants of an upper class — men, were honed in the earliest relationships between men and women. And for this reason, among others, radical feminists attend to the *way* women as a people group continue to be objectified and othered by men as a people group. Other otherings are important and the subject of the attention of all feminists, including radical feminists, but radical feminists attend first and foremost to this one, which is so central in so many ways.
Heart
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Basement Kim:
Heh. Oh, believe me. There’s nothing new there. I’m guessing that mine were officially revoked some time between the 2000 election and my being kicked off the Ms. Boards. Certainly those of us who got the short end of that particular stick are well-aquainted with the way that a certain subgroup of radical feminists can influence a supposedly moderate institution to use one very specific criteria of what “feminist cred” is– and then revoke status accordingly.
But, you know, life goes on. I will never give those clowns another dime of my money. And in the unlikely event that I someday manage to sell even more cheaply-produced, useless ephemera with my name on it than either Martha Stewart or Thomas Kinkeade, I will take great joy in telling them to kiss my ass when they call me up to request an interview. :p
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 8:28 pm
NOTE: SINCE THIS THREAD IS NOW NEARLY 300 POSTS LONG, I’ve moved the exchange between Heart and I to a fresh new thread.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 8:33 pm
You’ll always be a feminist to me, alsis.
Heh. For whatever that’s worth.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 2:45 am
Bean, I hope this wasn’t addressed to something I said, because if it was, I’ve completely failed to express myself properly. I would never say that a transgendered person would have a better insight into being a woman, but rather that he/she would have a different perspective.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 7:29 am
Agreed.
This comment was written by Nella.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 9:19 am
Ampersand:
I’ll tone my criticisms down a bit. It occured to me that you are neither omnipotent or omniscient, and it seems that you are doing your best to keep the discussion civil and relevant. (I am referring to the problem of post 263, that it had already received answers).
Seeing stuff disappear suddenly just prompted some response.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 10:59 am
piny and nella:
Likewise, I’m sure. 8)
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
January 2nd, 2006 at 7:58 pm
I think this thread shows a clear problem in how some people choose to engadge in any discussion where some or one of the concepts touching on “radical feminism” arise. It’s a pretty “dog pile” situation sometimes.
What was being discussed is the moderation policy here on Alas. Yet, without fail one can predict that the standard rants about trans inclusion will show up, that endless references to discussions on other forums and old grudges will be dragged out and that someone, somewhwre, will be called a “non feminist”.
It’s all sort of predictable more than a little unfortunate.
The whole “rape defense” thing is among the most interesting litmus tests applied to see if someone is feminist. It is as if to suggest that someone might want to deal with the real world as it exists at the moment is to betray them. I am completely unsure how. Teaching someone ways to mitigate a risk (self defense), giving them to tools to fight back (arming them) and advising caution are NOT betrayals… they are logical and practical strategies WHILE work continues to make it unecessary.
This comment was written by Soulhuntre.Report this comment to the moderators
January 2nd, 2006 at 8:28 pm
As I interpreted it, the question of rape defense was not a question regarding whether it would be a good thing if women could make themselves safer from rape, but, first of all, whether this was even possible; second of all, if it was, is it fair to imply that rape prevention is the responsibility of women (who can put tremendous time and energy into it and still be vulnerable) or men (who can just not rape); third of all, is it, in the long run, a productive or useful strategy, or a dead end (not to mention the whole issue of frequency of stranger rape vs. acquaintance rape).
This comment was written by Ledasmom.To put it another way: do you encourage people to use contained air supplies or do you try to do something about the damn air pollution?
Report this comment to the moderators
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:13 am
Clothing and rape.
So does it make any difference to a woman’s chance of being raped or doesn’t it? Does anyone know? Is there any evidence one way or another?
Because it seems to me that the question of whether women should or should not dress ‘provocatively’, or whether it’s blaming the victim, or putting responsibility upon her becomes all rather irrelevent if, as I suspect, clothing makes no difference whatsoever to the risk.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 3rd, 2006 at 4:27 pm
If radical feminist s state a need and desire for a space of their own I think that alone is enough to give it to them.No one here has the right or capacity to argue with someone else’s needs and certainly shouldn’t have the power to judge whether or not they should have it.
Give it to them is all I have to say.
This comment was written by RedNova.Report this comment to the moderators
January 4th, 2006 at 2:52 am
I’ve been following anongoing discussion at Alas (a blog) regarding the potential implementation of women-0nly space/threads/forums, apparently driven by the difficulty in conducting a conversation amidst many aggressively anti-feminist posters. The idea seems to be that conversation will be
This comment was written by Shiny Ideas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 4th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
up some controversy in my own head. Is it possible to be a feminist and believe in an Egalitarian society where every member has the opportunity to do the work they want to do and be whom they chose to be? Some would say yes, but Upon reexamining theflame war over at Alas and looking at the writings of various wymin around, I would have to conclude that no, modern feminism is no longer about equity and is instead focused on raising women into power against a patriarchy that is as much a created construct in
This comment was written by the world as seen through gold and green.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2006 at 12:37 am
for honest, independent, and sometimes well-informed commentary into a playground of partisan hackery. Honorable mention goes to Alas a Blog’s Barry Deutsch announcing a “feminist” double standard for commenting by men and women only to have aguest blogger turn the tool around on him by calling for threads in which he won’t be allowed to comment. There must be more that I’m forgetting, but this has to be the worst year for public displays of stupidity in a long, long time.
This comment was written by The Navel of the Internet.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2006 at 7:22 am
Amp does not have to give anyone anything. If radfems want their own space, they should go create their own space. They, nor MRAs nor anyone else has a right to force Amp to change his blog in any way. You have a right to not post here. You have a right to complain, but you do not have a right to force change on someone else.
Good grief, if radfems think the world is so great with only women, that men are not necessary, then why on earth are they on a man’s blog trying to get him to do all their work for them.
Pretty ironic, don’t ya think?
This comment was written by The Biscuit Queen.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2006 at 7:35 am
I will give it a try.
A woman is middle class, but needs the husband’s income to maintain her lifestyle. Her husband is abusing her and she fears for the kids. She goes to a battered women’s shelter, where they provide free childcare, a lawyer, legal advice, and a place to stay with the children with security in case the husband tries to track her down. They help her find an apartment, file a restraining order, and get sole custody of the children and child support.
Sounds right? This is fair, battered women should be protected, and children should not have to live in fear of a parent.
A man middle class, but depends on his wife’s income to maintain the lifestyle. His wife is physically abusing him, and he fears for his children. He calls a DV shelter and is told they do not help men. He calls the police and he is arrested. Finally, a DV shelter suggests he go to a hotel. The only one he can afford is very seedy, very small and not a good place for children. He has no where to take his kids while he is at work. He has no money for legal advice, the judge will not grant a restraining order, the hotel has no security. Based on where he is living, likely he will not get custody of the children.
Now tell me, how is this fair? How is it that the kids can be so utterly without protection simply because the parent fleeing is a man? How is it that male abused, who make up about a third of all DV victims, have no services?
Here are two cases similar but entirely different outcomes.
This comment was written by The Biscuit Queen.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Um, Biscuit Queen, radical feminists/lesbian separatists do have our own spaces and one of them is here, Women’s Space/The Margins , and our boards are here Women’s Space/Margins Boards.
Now. Imagine if a bunch of us showed up en masse at your hangout, Stand Your Ground, and just spammed every last nook and cranny of the place with anti-men’s rights, anti-father’s rights posts and radical feminist sentiment. Just filled every last thread with them. (Sounds like a plan to me.) And beyond spamming every last thread with the above, say every time somebody at SYG began some MR or FR discussion, we all showed up to disrupt the thread, divert it, get all of you explaining and re-explaining precisely what mens’ rights is about and what fathers’ rights are about, stirred up shit amongst you, turned you against one another. And what if this went on and on forever, to the point that you and all your buds over there could barely get a word in edgewise, such that you got irate and belligerent a few times. And then what if Dr. Evil’s (the mod over there’s) response to your belligerence was not to deal with the radical feminists but was to *ban YOU*. The men’s rights/father’s rights guys who were mad at radical feminists for spamming every thread.
How would that grab you?
That’s we believe has happened here. So far, that I know of, three good radical feminists have been banned and many more hounded out of here or otherwise silenced, good women who have so much to contribute. Yet the MRAs and the FRAs and anti-feminists in general, and anti-radical-feminists in particular, just continue on, spamming the place day after wearying day. Amp intended these boards to be feminist and pro-feminist, yet from what I can see they are mostly a haven for anti-feminists, men’s rights trolls and people with axes of various kinds to grind against feminism. That’s Amp’s issue and his deal and he can run his blog any way he chooses. But if he keeps banning radical feminists from his feminist blog, we’re going to have something to say about that. Loudly. Just as if Dr. Evil kept banning MRAs and FRAs from SYG while we radical feminists turned it into our own personal playground, yet continued to call it a Men’s/Father’s Rights site, you, and other MRAs and FRAs would likewise have something to say about that. Loudly.
As to your scenario up there, let’s try something a little different.
Let’s say a woman is middle class but depends on her husband’s income. He forbids her to work — a working wife would embarrass him in front of his friends and family and anyway, daycare centers don’t exist to care for their kids — and she isn’t eligible for many kinds of employment anyway because she is a woman. Her husband physically abuses her and she fears for her life and for her children. She can’t write a check or take money from her husband’s checking account because it is in his name only and he will not add her name. She has no access to any money other than the allowance her husband gives her. Her name is not on the deed to the house, or the bank accounts or the car registration. All of these are in her husband’s name only and she can’t lay claim to them or use them without his permission. She can’t go to her church for help because her church will (1) not believe her; (2) tell her she is probably a bad wife and mother and if she were a better wife and mother, her husband wouldn’t have to abuse her and the kids; (3) opposes divorce; (4) will tell her husband she has come to them for help and is thinking of leaving.
She has no access to money for anything at all — motel, hotel, apartment, food, shelter of any kind. There are no domestic violence shelters. It is not a crime for a husband to batter or rape his wife or to strike his children, so she can’t call the police. They will say it’s a “domestic matter.” If she somehow gets an attorney and files for divorce, since no-fault dissolution does not exist, she will have to “prove” that she is “entitled” to a divorce. Having been beaten or raped or the kids being beaten or raped won’t entitle her to a divorce; these are either not illegal or it will be her word against his and he will deny everything and there will be no police reports because what he did to her was not a crime and she never called police. She has never worked, because she wasn’t allowed to by her husband, she has no job skills and no job history. There are no daycare centers. She has many children because there is no effective birth control, abortion is illegal, and her husband does not take no for an answer when it comes to sex. She is effectively his property.
What I have described is life as it existed in the United States 40 years ago. At that time, women came together, compared notes, came to understand that they were all experiencing the same things, and together they made a revolution. They took battered women and their children into their own homes, and these became the first DV shelters. They marched in the streets and lobbied legislators and brought lawsuits and gave their lives, basically, to ending the era of women as chattel property to men. They used their own money, their own bodies, their own time, their own brilliance, their own courage. They were arrested, harrassed, threatened, badgered, and relentlessly excoriated.
But the world we have now, 40 years later, is a new and different world. And why? Because women made revolution.
I would suggest to you that women have no obligation to serve men. I would suggest to you that we do not have any obligation to make our shelters or our crisis counseling lines or anything else we created with our own sweat, blood and tears available to men. If some woman wants to do so, fine with me. But we are under no obligation to do any such thing.
I would suggest to you that the daycares centers we created for children are available, right now, for to men to use, daycare centers don’t discriminate on any sort of basis, so your hypothetical battered man has a place to take his children where one did not exist 40 years ago. And why? Because of feminism. I will tell you straight up that in most states, mine, for sure, *anybody* can get an anti-harrassment order that is good for 30 days, just on a say-so, that’s man or woman. Additionally, initial divorce filings nearly always contain restraining orders of both parties as against the other as a matter of course. And why? Because of feminism. So let the guy take his rear end down to the court house and get a restraining order or file for divorce. Anybody can, no attorney needed, in the case of restraining orders at least. I will tell you straight up that if your theoretical battered guy wants custody of his children, and if he actively seeks it, he is far more likely to GET custody than his wife is. And why? Because of feminism. And the figures for this are easy to find for anybody who goes looking for this. Check out the Countess’s site, for starters.
As to “depending on the wife’s income to maintain the lifestyle,” well, that’s a far cry from being forced into dependency as women once were. The guy has a job. He has money. He has access to money. He can take care of himself. This was NOT true for women, because of systemic and institutionalized sexism, prior to the Second Wave.
That leaves only one issue: the issue of DV shelters which aren’t open to men. You know what? You tell these hypothetical legions of battered men to do what we did: start taking one another into their own homes. Start raising money. Rent space when they outgrow homes. Care for one another’s kids. Find sympathetic attorneys, doctors, politicians. There’s nothing stopping them. What are they waiting for? I’d submit to you, too, that no battered woman I know wants to go to a shelter staffed by, or full of, men. And there are reasons for that. And for those reasons, I suggest you read the nightly news. And I’d also suggest to you that there are reasons men would not have a problem going to shelters staffed by, or full of, women. And for the reasons for that, I’d suggest you also read the nightly news. In general, men are a danger to women, not the other way around. And even if A woman is a danger to A man, the danger ends there. It doesn’t work the other way around. Women just aren’t out there raping and murdering men by the score, up to 50 or more over a lifetime for shits and giggles. That’s what men do. Not women. And that’s why women don’t like to see random men in shelters. Well, that’s one reason. And if you need a list of men who have murdered 10 through 60 women over their lifetimes with the names of victims, I can provide that information. But you will never find any comparable information about women killing 20-60 men throughout their lives. Because it doesn’t happen.
So. In sum. We feminists have done a whole lot of work over the last 40 years to make life much better for your theoretical battered guy than it would have been without all the work we have done. He has inherited a much better world for someone in his position than existed prior to feminism. And it’s radical feminsists and lesbian separatists and feminists, period, you and he have to think for all the many resources which exist for him which never existed before. One thing we haven’t done is make DV shelters for men. Please do not hold your breath on that. Men ought to be able to do that one thing for themselves.
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2006 at 11:20 am
I think Amp understands that. He has, however, explained that he is open to suggestions as on how to improve his